MZYJN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2011] HCASL 140
MZYJN
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2011] HCASL 140
M41/2011
The applicant is a citizen of India and arrived in Australia on 9 July 2008. He applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 3 July 2009. On 12 August 2009, a delegate of the first respondent refused his application.
On 27 July 2010, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the delegate's decision. The applicant claimed to fear persecution on the grounds of his Christianity and membership of a low caste. He claimed to have been a member of a Catholic youth organisation and to have been attacked by extremist Hindus due to his beliefs. He referred to various instances of physical assault and intimidation against him by members of the Bajrang Dal (BD) and Vishwa Hindu Prashid (VHP), which continued following his arrival in Australia. He also claimed that BD and VHP members lodged complaints against him with the police alleging that he had attempted to convert low caste Hindus to Christianity, for which he was subsequently questioned and charged by police. Whilst the Tribunal accepted that the applicant had been involved in a Christian church and was an active member of a Catholic youth organisation, other aspects of his claims were found to be unconvincing due to a number of inconsistencies in his evidence, and the Tribunal did not accept that he had faced persecution owing to membership of his caste.
On 31 January 2011 the Federal Magistrates Court (Whelan FM) dismissed the applicant's application for review of the Tribunal's decision. The grounds advanced by the applicant centred on unparticularised assertions that the Tribunal breached s 424A(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), as well as claims relating to a lack of procedural fairness and error of law. Whelan FM found that the grounds on which the applicant sought relief were not made out.
On 12 May 2011, the Federal Court of Australia (North J) dismissed the applicant's appeal. His Honour held that the only complaint advanced by the applicant was breach of s 424A(1) of the Act, and otherwise his submissions went only to the merits of the Tribunal's decision and demonstrated no jurisdictional error.
The application to this Court does not advance any questions of law that would justify the grant of special leave to appeal. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions below.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.
W.M.C. Gummow S.M. Kiefel 8 September 2011
0
0