AZABV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2013] HCASL 136

AZABV

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 136
A8/2013

1. The applicant is a citizen of India.  He arrived in Australia on 25 November 2008 on a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.  On 27 June 2011, the applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa which was refused by a delegate of the first respondent on 10 October 2011.

2. On 27 February 2012, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the delegate's decision.  The Tribunal found that the applicant had exaggerated important parts of his claim and that there was no real chance of the applicant being persecuted if he was to return to India.  In making this finding, the Tribunal had regard to country information about India.

3. On 19 October 2012, the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (Simpson FM) dismissed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. Simpson FM rejected the applicant's grounds of appeal, including a claim that the Tribunal had failed to provide him with information in breach of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The country information the Tribunal relied upon was not specifically about the applicant or any other person, and so did not need to be provided to him under the exception in s 424A(3)(a).

4. On 6 March 2013, the Federal Court of Australia (Besanko J) dismissed the applicant's appeal from Simpson FM's decision, with costs.  Besanko J rejected a claim that the Tribunal had denied the applicant procedural fairness as being without merit.  There was also no substance to the applicant's contention that the Tribunal had erred by failing to investigate his claims.  The Tribunal did consider the applicant's claims, but rejected them.  Besanko J could not detect error of any kind in the Tribunal's reasons.

5. The application for special leave to appeal to this Court does not raise any question of law that would justify a grant of special leave.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Federal Court's decision.  Special leave is refused.

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

S.M. Kiefel
4 September 2013 P.A. Keane