SZBED v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 808

[2005] HCATrans 808

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S210 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZBED

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2005, AT 9.47 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of India from the State of Tamil Nadu.  He claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well‑founded fear of persecution by reason of his religion.  In particular, the applicant claims to have been targeted individually by Al Umma, a Muslim terrorist organisation, and that both his father and his first wife had been murdered as a result of sectarian violence.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The Tribunal did not find the applicant to be a reliable witness.  The Tribunal was not satisfied that the death of the applicant’s first wife in a house fire in 1998 was murder.  It noted also that Tamil Nadu is an overwhelmingly Hindu State, making it highly unlikely that the applicant would be targeted and harmed with impunity by a group such as Al Umma.  The Tribunal adverted to the possibility that, even as a Tamil, the applicant could have avoided the difficulties arising from his ongoing feud with Al Umma by relocating elsewhere within India.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court.  The Court dismissed his application on the basis that the applicant had not shown jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision, which had turned upon factual matters.  An appeal to the Federal Court (Wilcox ACJ) was dismissed. 

We have reviewed the applicant’s written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court.  There are insufficient prospects of success in any appeal to this Court from the decision of Wilcox ACJ.  Accordingly, special leave to appeal is refused. 

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

AT 9.49 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED