HZAAA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 54

HZAAA
 v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2012] HCASL 54
H1/2012

1. The applicant, a citizen of India, arrived in Australia on 31 January 2010 and applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 3 March 2010.  A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 29 October 2010 and the applicant was notified of this decision by letter dated 4 November 2010.  The second respondent, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), affirmed the delegate's decision on 28 March 2011.

2. The applicant claimed to be a Hindu and an active member of the Hindu Sheve Sana Party ("HSSP").  The applicant claimed to fear persecution from a Sikh student political party, the Khalistan Student Federation ("KSF"), which was aware that the applicant was an activist at the college he attended and placed the applicant on its "hit list".  In support of his application, the applicant claimed that the KSF had raided his house and issued constant death threats.

3. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse to grant a protection visa on the basis that the information provided by the applicant in support of his application was "scant and vague".  Further, as the applicant did not attend the Tribunal hearing on 28 February 2011, it was difficult for the Tribunal to explore the legitimacy of his claims of persecution.  As such, the Tribunal was unable to be satisfied on the evidence before it that the applicant had a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of political opinion or any other Convention reason.

4. The applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision in the Federal Magistrates Court.  On 25 July 2011, Hartnett FM dismissed the applicant's claim that a denial of natural justice constituting a legal error had been made on the part of the Tribunal and concluded that no jurisdictional error had been made.

5. The applicant appealed the decision of Hartnett FM in the Federal Court.  On 16 December 2011, Marshall J upheld the decision of Hartnett FM finding that the Federal Magistrates Court dealt with all grounds of review and that the applicant failed to identify any error on the part of the Federal Magistrate.  The appeal was dismissed with costs.

6. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from the decision of Marshall J.  No error has been shown in that decision, and the applicant would enjoy no prospects of success on an appeal to this Court.  Special leave is refused.

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

W.M.C. Gummow
29 March 2012 S.M. Kiefel