MZWBP v MIMIA

[2006] HCATrans 184

[2006] HCATrans 184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M143 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

MZWBP

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 12 APRIL 2006, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of India who claims to fear political and religious persecution.  His claim for a protection visa was rejected by the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal accepted that the applicant and his family may have supported the creation of a separate Sikh state, as the applicant claimed, but considered that they had a “low profile” as supporters of that movement and were not identified with the militant movements of the late 1980s and early 1990s, movements which have in any case since subsided and given way to a situation of political stability.  Moreover, the Tribunal noted that although the applicant’s father and other family members had been attacked during religious riots in the mid‑1980s, “the only harm which the applicant’s family seems to have suffered since then is some discrimination by the Hindu families who are in the majority in the part of Delhi where they live” and found that this was not harm of such severity as to constitute persecution.  The Tribunal also correctly rejected other grounds of the application as they were not claims to fear persecution for a Convention reason.

The Federal Magistrates Court dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review as demonstrating no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.  In particular the Federal Magistrate dismissed an unsupported allegation of bad faith or bias on the part of the Tribunal.  An appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Sundberg J.

There would be insufficient prospects of success on any appeal to this Court from the Federal Court to warrant a grant of special leave.  Special leave is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.  I publish the disposition signed by Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.33 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED