SZBCF v MIMIA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 287

[2006] HCATrans 287

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S583 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZBCF

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 ACJ
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 13 JUNE 2006, AT 9.24 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW ACJ:   The applicant is a citizen of India and a Muslim who claims to fear religious persecution from Hindu supporters of the local BJP political party and members of the police force in the states of Tamil Nadu and Gujarat.  The decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse his application for a protection visa was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal found that the applicant had “fabricated his claims in order to extend his stay in Australia”.  The applicant’s claims were described as vague, lacking in detail and inconsistent, as well as being contrary to the available independent information and his behaviour was found to be inconsistent with a genuine fear of persecution.

The Federal Magistrates Court dismissed the applicant’s application for judicial review as demonstrating neither any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision nor any failure to accord procedural fairness.  An appeal to the Federal Court on the ground of alleged failure by the Tribunal to accord procedural fairness to the applicant was dismissed by Bennett J, who also refused leave to the applicant to rely upon a ground of appeal that the Federal Magistrate had failed to consider certain matters on the basis that those matters had not been raised before the Federal Magistrate.

During the hearing (at which the applicant was unrepresented), Bennett J raised a question as to compliance with s 424A(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in the light of SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 79 ALJR 1009; 215 ALR 162. The issue arose in so far as the Tribunal had cited conflicts between the applicant’s evidence before it and evidence in his visa application. Bennett J concluded that the Tribunal’s citation of those inconsistencies was not the reason or part of the reason for the decision made by the Tribunal. Accordingly, there had been sufficient compliance with s 424A.

The applicant’s summary of argument relies upon vague assertions of error in relation to the s 424A(1) issue and the refusal by Bennett J to permit the applicant to rely upon grounds of appeal in relation to matters not before the Federal Magistrate. There would be no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court from the Federal Court. 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 9.26 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED