MZYMV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 130

MZYMV

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2012] HCASL 130
M28/2012

1. The applicant, a citizen of India, arrived in Australia on 5 May 2007 and applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 25 August 2010.  A delegate of the first respondent refused the application for a protection visa on 10 December 2010.  The second respondent, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), affirmed the delegate's decision on 3 May 2011.

2. The applicant claimed to be a member of the Akali Dal, a religious political party in India, and to have spoken out against atrocities committed by the Indian Army when the Indian Army raided the Golden Temple of the Sikh religion. The applicant further claims that he was tortured and has undergone persecution and cannot receive protection in India as the Indian intelligence agencies accuse the applicant of being a Pakistani agent or spy.

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 provided very few details concerning his claim to face a risk of harm in India. The Tribunal further rejected the claim made by the applicant that he was a member of the Akali Dal political party.  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 October 2011, Riethmuller FM dismissed the applicant's claim that there was a failure on the part of the delegate regarding the persecution suffered by the applicant and concluded that no jurisdictional error had been made.

5. The applicant appealed the decision of Riethmuller FM in the Federal Court.  On 2 March 2012, Bromberg J upheld the decision of Riethmuller FM finding that the Federal Magistrates Court dealt with all grounds of review and that the applicant had 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 the Federal Court.  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 application.

W.M.C. Gummow
15 August 2012 S.M. Kiefel