MZYMQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 89

MZYMQ

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2012] HCASL 89
M26/2012

1. The applicant is a citizen of India.

2. The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") dismissed the applicant's  application for review of a decision of a delegate of the first respondent refusing the applicant a protection visa.  It did so on the grounds that the applicant's claims, to the extent that they were accepted, did not show that the applicant faced a real risk of serious harm if he returned to India and lacked a sufficient nexis with the Convention.  It further held that even if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, relocation within India to avoid that persecution was reasonably practicable. 

3. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant's estranged wife had threatened to kill their son (born in 1997) or had otherwise engaged in acts of "serious harm" to the son.  And the Tribunal found that the applicant had greatly overstated threats made by his father-in-law.  They were no more than generalised, isolated and hollow threats which never resulted in serious harm.  The Tribunal also held that a fear of persecution arising from matrimonial discord was not Convention-related persecution.

4. The Federal Magistrates Court (Burchardt FM) dismissed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision.  The applicant had "not advanced any meaningful particularised ground of application such as to identify jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal." 

5. The Federal Court of Australia (Bromberg J) dismissed an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court. Bromberg J rejected the applicant's submissions that the Tribunal had "ignored" the applicant's claims of persecution by its application of s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and that the Federal Magistrates Court had failed to consider the Tribunal's "legal and factual errors".

6. The papers filed in support of the applicant's application for special leave to appeal to this Court make complaints which are either entirely unparticularised or wholly unrelated to these proceedings.  An appeal would have no prospects of success. 

7. The application is dismissed.

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

J.D. Heydon
20 June 2012 V.M. Bell