SZELK v MIAC & Anor

[2008] HCATrans 114

[2008] HCATrans 114

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S468 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZELK

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 29 FEBRUARY 2008, AT 9.51 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of India who claims to fear persecution from Muslim fundamentalists, including his fiancée’s brothers.  In a decision signed on 9 December 2005, the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse his application for a protection visa.  Although the Tribunal accepted that the applicant was Hindu and had a Muslim fiancée, it was not satisfied that he had a well-founded fear of persecution from his fiancée’s brothers or other Muslim fundamentalists.  The Tribunal also found, in any event, that the applicant had access to adequate and effective state protection and that it would be reasonable and safe for him to relocate within India.

An application for an order to show cause why a remedy should not be granted under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates Court on 2 March 2007. Lloyd‑Jones FM held that none of applicant’s grounds of review could be sustained. An appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Lindgren J on 15 August 2007. His Honour found that no case of jurisdictional error had been made out. His Honour also observed that, even if such a case had been established, the Tribunal’s decision had two additional and independent bases which would support a dismissal of the appeal on discretionary grounds.

The application for special leave to appeal does not advance any question of law that would justify the intervention of this Court.  There are no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court.  Special leave is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave with costs.  I publish the disposition signed by Justice Kiefel and myself.

AT 9.53 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED