SZCUW v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 575

[2007] HCATrans 575

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S6 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZCUW

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2007, AT 9.07 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a national of Pakistan.  He arrived in Australia as long ago as July 1992.  He applied for a protection visa in March 1996.  He claimed to fear persecution by reason of his involvement in the Mohajir Qaumi Movement ("MQM").  The "Mohajirs" (literally "refugees") are Urdu-speaking Muslims who migrated to Pakistan when India was partitioned in 1947.  The applicant's claim of persecution related to internecine strife within MQM, the discrimination he had suffered as a Mohajir, and his complaint that the Government of Pakistan did not provide him with protection against violence, police harassment and false arrest.

The Minister's delegate refused the applicant's application.  The applicant sought review by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  The Tribunal dismissed the application on the basis of adverse credibility findings in relation to the applicant's testimony.  It did not accept that, whatever role he had played in MQM, there would be a real chance of persecution if he returned to Pakistan.  Nor did it accept that the Government or its agencies were conducting an operation against members of the MQM or were powerless to prevent persecution of its members.

An application for judicial review was rejected by the Federal Magistrates Court (Driver FM).  That decision was upheld on appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, whose appellate jurisdiction was exercised by Edmonds J. 

In this Court, in support of his application for special leave, the applicant relies on the grounds advanced in the Federal Court, where the applicant had been represented.  They object to the conclusion that any violence against MQM members was random and non-selective and that there was effective State protection.

Neither ground demonstrates jurisdictional error.  Nor is any other arguable basis for the intervention of this Court established.  Ultimately, the Tribunal's decision turned, substantially, on its adverse view of the applicant's credibility and its conclusion that ordinary members of MQM (such as it held the applicant to be) would not face persecution.  Those factual findings are undisturbed by jurisdictional error.  They stand in the path of a grant of special leave to appeal to this Court.

Special leave must therefore be refused.

Because in this Court the applicant is unrepresented, his application has been dealt with in accordance with r 41.10 of the High Court Rules.  Pursuant to r 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.

I publish that disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.10 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED