SZTIV v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2015] HCASL 128

SZTIV

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR

[2015] HCASL 128
S48/2015

1. The applicant, a national of Sri Lanka, seeks special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Court of Australia (Edmonds J) dismissing her appeal from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Judge Driver). 

2. The Federal Circuit Court dismissed an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirming the decision of a delegate of the first respondent not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa.  The Tribunal found that the applicant had "fabricated her protection claims" and was not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia owes protection obligations.

3. The applicant does not have legal representation and her application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

4. Only one of the proposed grounds of appeal is directed to the Federal Court's decision.  This ground asserts that Edmonds J "should have given leave to provide further material to establish the claims made to support the additional grounds of appeal".  In her application and written case, the applicant complains that the Tribunal and the courts below failed to take into consideration a document that she sent by fax about a ministerial direction.  Whether this is the material to which the ground relates is not apparent.  The significance of the "further material" is unexplained.  There is no indication that any application was made to the Tribunal, Judge Driver or Edmonds J with respect to it. 

5. The applicant's proposed challenge based on WZAPN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 947 cannot be sustained in light of this Court's decision in Minister for Immigration andBorder Protection v WZAPN [2015] HCA 22.

6. None of the proposed grounds raises a question suitable for the grant of special leave.  If special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would enjoy insufficient prospects of success. 

7. The application is dismissed.

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

V.M. Bell
13 August 2015 S.J. Gageler