SZTKN v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2015] HCASL 92

SZTKN

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR

[2015] HCASL 92
S43/2015

1. This is an application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Court of Australia (Logan J) given on 16 February 2015, dismissing an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Judge Nicholls) given on 26 September 2014, dismissing an application for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") which affirmed a decision of the delegate of the first respondent to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa ("protection visa").

2. The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China ("China") and arrived in Australia as a visitor on 9 September 2012.  She applied for a protection visa on 11 September 2012.  The basis of her claim was that she was a Falun Gong practitioner in China for which she was persecuted by the Chinese government and had been gaoled or placed in a "detention centre" on three occasions in 2001, 2010 and 2011.

3. The application was refused and the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's refusal because of concerns as to the applicant's credibility.  The Tribunal concluded that she was not a witness of truth and that her claims were false.  It found that she did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and that there were not substantial grounds for believing that she would suffer serious harm.

4. The application to the Federal Circuit Court was put on the basis that the Tribunal had failed to deal with an unspecified integer of the applicant's claim; that the applicant had practised Falun Gong after arriving in Australia, and that gave rise to a "potential sur place" claim; and that the Tribunal had breached s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by taking a matter into account without affording the applicant an appropriate opportunity to respond to it. The judge found that none of those grounds was made out and that it was not established that the Tribunal had committed any jurisdictional error.

5. The applicant's grounds of appeal to the Federal Court were:  (1) that the Tribunal appeared to have been biased against her; and (2) that the Tribunal had ignored relevant considerations.  Logan J found that the alleged apprehension of bias rose no higher than acute dissatisfaction with the merits of the Tribunal's conclusions and that the claim of failing to take account of a relevant consideration was not established.

6. The applicant's proposed grounds of appeal to this Court are:

   "(1)The Refugee Review Tribunal did not fully consider my claim that I had been persecuted in the past by Chinese authorities.

   (2)The Refugee Review Tribunal was or appeared to be biased against me in making the decision."

7. The applicant does not have legal representation and so the application falls to be determined pursuant to r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

8. It will be apparent that the applicant advances no arguable ground of appeal against the judgment of Logan J and thus that an appeal to this Court would not enjoy any prospect of success.  Special leave should be refused.

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

K.M. Hayne
13 May 2015 G.A.A. Nettle