SZERH v MIAC & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 673

[2007] HCATrans 673

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S88 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZERH

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 THURSDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2007, AT 9.30 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of India.  On 10 June 2004 a delegate of the first respondent refused his application for a protection visa. The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the decision of the delegate of the first respondent on 12 October 2004.  The Tribunal did not consider it implausible that the applicant was briefly detained and ill-treated in 1990 because he was perceived to be involved in Sikh separatism, but it was not satisfied that the applicant's membership of the All India Sikh Students Federation gave rise to a well-founded fear of persecution.

In the Federal Magistrates Court the applicant claimed that the Tribunal misunderstood his claim to have left India because of a crackdown on Sikh activists.  Nicholls FM rejected that complaint, and the applicant's complaints regarding the Tribunal's credibility finding, jurisdictional error and Wednesbury unreasonableness.  The application was dismissed on 21 July 2006.

Siopis J dismissed the applicant's appeal to the Federal Court on 22 February 2007.  The applicant's claim to have left India because of a crackdown on Sikh activists was rejected by the Tribunal on credibility grounds that were free from jurisdictional error.  The Federal Magistrate did not err by failing to find that the Tribunal erred in failing to seek new country information, and there was no evidence that the Tribunal did not make its own inquiry.

The applicant's case before this Court discloses no question of law that would justify a grant of special leave, and shows no cause to doubt the correctness of the decisions below.  On the material before it, it was open to the Tribunal to reject the applicant's claims on credibility grounds.  There are no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court.  Special leave 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 Justice Kiefel and myself.

AT 9.32 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED