SZDPB v MIMIA

[2007] HCATrans 211

[2007] HCATrans 211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S248 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZDPB

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 22 MAY 2007 AT 9.30 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is the child of other applicants (SZCLL and SZCLM) whose applications for special leave to appeal to this Court are before the Court separately and have been dismissed.

The applicant and her parents are nationals of India.  The present applicant's application is derivative from, and dependent upon, those of her parents.

In the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), the present applicant's claim was dealt with separately. In December 2003, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that it was unable to make a favourable decision on her application on the written information alone. It invited the applicant to give oral evidence, presumably an invitation to her parents to do so. At first, the applicant indicated that she would attend a hearing with her migration agent. Thereafter, she advised the Tribunal that she was sick and could not attend on the allocated hearing date. Subsequently, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant again notifying a postponed hearing date. It informed the applicant that, if she did not attend, a decision could be made without further notice. The applicant did not attend on the postponed date. Thereafter, pursuant to s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Tribunal proceeded to determine the application. It dismissed it, substantially on the basis upon which the earlier application of the parents had been dismissed.

Subsequently, the applicant sought judicial review by the Federal Magistrates Court.  Her application was heard by Nicholls FM.  The application was rejected. 

An appeal was then taken to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.  It was then consolidated with the appeal of the applicant's parents.  The appeal was rejected by the Full Court.

The application for special leave to appeal to this Court complains that the Tribunal did not follow proper procedures.  It relies, in template fashion, upon this Court's decision in the Muin litigation. 

The application does not advance any question of law nor any error of the Federal Court that would warrant a grant of special leave.  No jurisdictional or legal error is apparent.  The application must therefore be refused.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, it has been dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules.  Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.  I publish that disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 9.33 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED