SZQPB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 152

SZQPB

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2012] HCASL 152
S164/2012

1. The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China.  She arrived in Australia on 20 December 2009.  She applied for a protection visa on 20 September 2010.  A delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship refused the application on 11 January 2011. 

2. The applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for a review of the delegate's decision.  Her claim to engage Australia's protection obligations arises out of a dispute between her husband and the authorities in China over the compulsory acquisition of his office premises.  She claims that he had been arrested and beaten by the police following his protest over the unreasonable compensation offered in connection with the acquisition.  The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence on this topic revealed a "degree of confusion" and more generally that her claims lacked credibility.  It instanced inconsistencies between her evidence and the statements earlier made in her departmental interview and in support of her son's student visa application.  It was not satisfied with the applicant's explanation of the reasons for the delay in applying for a protection visa.  The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.

3. An application for judicial review of the Tribunal's determination was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates Court (Smith FM).

4. An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Robertson J) was dismissed. 

5. The applicant applies for special leave to appeal.  Her proposed grounds of appeal are formulaic.  They include unparticularised assertions that Robertson J and Smith FM were affected by bias.  Nothing in the material filed in support of the application lends any colour to that serious charge.  Other unparticularised grounds complain that Robertson J "fail[ed] to hear the evidence given by the applicant" and failed to identify the jurisdictional error made by the Tribunal.  The written case does not engage with the proposed grounds of appeal, nor with the reasons of the Court below.  It reiterates certain of the facts which formed the basis of the applicant's claim.  If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have no prospects of success. 

6. The application is dismissed.

7. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.D. Heydon
13 November 2012 V.M. Bell