SZEMK v MIMIA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 561

[2006] HCATrans 561

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S119 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZEMK

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

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2006, AT 9.38 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of India and a Sikh, who claims to fear political persecution by reason of his involvement in the Indian National Congress Party (“INCP”) of which his uncle was a district president in the Karnal area of the state of Haryana in the Punjab.  He claimed to be a leader of the youth wing of INCP and that, following campaigning in October 2003, he was attacked and beaten by his uncle’s political opponents.  The decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse his application for a protection visa was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  Although the Tribunal accepted the applicant’s basic history, it held that he had not been denied adequate state protection, as the police had investigated his attack, and that it would be reasonable for him to relocate elsewhere in India, his concerns being very localised to Haryana.

The applicant’s application for judicial review was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates Court.  Smith FM considered that the Tribunal had addressed the applicant’s claims and that it was open to the Tribunal to reach the conclusions it did on the material before it.  An appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Stone J, who described the applicant’s notice of appeal as “difficult to interpret”, all grounds it contained involving an impermissible attempt to obtain merits review.

The applicant’s draft notice of appeal is formulaic in nature and his summary of argument does not point to any error in the Tribunal’s two key findings, and the affirmation of those findings by the Federal Magistrates Court and by the Federal Court.  There are insufficient prospects of success in any appeal to this Court to warrant a grant of special leave, which, accordingly, 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 9.39 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED