SZEJT v MIMIA

[2006] HCATrans 105

[2006] HCATrans 105

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S417 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZEJT

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

KIRBY J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 8 MARCH 2006, AT 9.43 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:  

Background to the application

The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of India, arrived in Australia on 20 January 2004 and applied for a protection visa.  On 18 February 2004 a delegate of the respondent Minister refused the application.  The applicant claimed to have been involved in politics since his school days and stated that, after his graduation, he became a staunch supporter of, and activist in, the DMK Party.  This brought him to the attention of the authorities and led to his being imprisoned.  He later changed his party allegiance and claimed that he was implicated by the police on many occasions.  He stated that he had been harassed by members of his caste and religion for advocating inter-religious and inter-caste marriages.  He claimed that, after returning to India from Australia in January 2004, he was attacked by political rivals.  He thereupon fled India and made the present application.

The Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”) expressed the opinion that the applicant lacked credibility and that his claims should not be accepted.  It found inconsistencies in his versions of events and held that the essential reason for any fear of persecution in India stemmed from what was primarily a personal dispute.  The RRT was also satisfied that the applicant could safely and reasonably relocate within India.

On appeal to the Federal Magistrates Court (Lloyd-Jones FM) the applicant raised a number of grounds of appeal.  In rejecting the application, the Federal Magistrate noted that the applicant had raised a number of issues which were “unstructured and amount to little more than a list of issues that are commonly canvassed in administrative review without identifying the statement or context where that particular error is alleged to have occurred within the decision structure”.  The Federal Magistrates Court found that the primary reason for rejecting the protection visa application had been the fact that the applicant was found not to be credible on the basis of inconsistencies and implausibilities in his various claims. 

On appeal to the Federal Court (Tamberlin J) the applicant submitted that the Tribunal had not properly investigated his case.  He claimed that the Tribunal had erred in finding that, even if he was subject to persecution in a part of India, he could reasonably be expected to relocate to other parts of India.  Tamberlin J noted that the grounds of appeal had been cast in broad and general terms and that the applicant had not pointed to any part of the RRT’s decision which was in error.  His Honour noted that the decision of the Tribunal turned on the credibility of the applicant; that it itemised the matters which it rejected; and gave reasons in considerable detail for rejecting those matters.  It could not be said that the Tribunal had failed to consider the applicant’s case and nothing had been shown to indicate any error of law or any error of principle on the part of either of the RRT or the Federal Magistrate.

Disposition of the application

The applicant’s draft notice of appeal states that the RRT failed to follow procedures required by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and that it failed to justify its decision. It further contends that the RRT exceeded its jurisdiction in failing to accord the applicant procedural fairness. It further claims that the RRT erred in not investigating his case. The applicant’s written case recounts the claims that he made in support of his application for a protection visa. However, the applicant has failed to identify instances where procedural fairness had been denied; where procedures required by the Act to be followed had not been followed; nor does he point to any evidence of bias on the part of the RRT.

The application does not raise any questions of law still less ones of general public importance.  The findings of the RRT turned on its assessment of the applicant’s credibility.  Inconsistencies and implausibilities in the applicant’s evidence before the RRT were drawn to his attention.  The applicant has not identified any procedures that were not complied with by the RRT and has not pointed to any jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal or any error of law in the lower courts that would warrant a grant of special leave to appeal to this Court.

In these circumstances there would be no prospects of success in any appeal to this Court from the Federal Court.  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 the application for special leave.  I publish the disposition signed by Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.47 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED