SZDOV v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 810

[2005] HCATrans 810

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S187 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZDOV

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 9.51 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of India from the State of Tamil Nadu.  He arrived in Australia in June 2003 and claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his membership of, and activity in, the Congress Party, which attracted harassment by members of the Baharti Janta Party (“the BJP”).

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The Tribunal was prepared to accept that the applicant was an ordinary member of the Congress Party, but rejected his claim that he had a sufficiently high political profile in Tamil Nadu to be targeted by the BJP.  The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies between the applicant’s written claims and those he made at the hearings before the Tribunal, concluding that he was not a credible witness.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court.  Among other things, the applicant contended that the Tribunal misinformed him in telling him that it had no record of his ever being associated with the Congress Party only subsequently to make a finding that he was an ordinary member of that Party, albeit one without a high political profile.  However, the Court found that this finding was merely an instance of the Tribunal giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt.  It did not represent an attempt to misinform the applicant.  On the basis that the applicant had failed to show any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision, the Court dismissed his application for review.

An appeal to the Federal Court (Wilcox J) was subsequently dismissed.  His Honour noted that the applicant had not advanced any ground of jurisdictional error and added that he saw no basis for imputing jurisdictional error to the Tribunal.

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 J.  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.

The Court will now adjourn until 10.00 am.

AT 9.53 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED