SZHMM v Mimi

[2007] HCATrans 358

[2007] HCATrans 358

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S426 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZHMM

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 1 AUGUST 2007, AT 9.38 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a citizen of India who arrived in Australia on 16 January 2005.  He unsuccessfully applied for a protection visa on 3 February 2005.  The applicant sought review of that refusal by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), which affirmed the decision of the delegate to refuse a visa.

By the time of the Tribunal's decision the applicant had provided two conflicting statements of evidence.  It was because of inconsistency before it that the Tribunal put to the applicant its understanding of the facts, the applicant confirming the accuracy of that understanding.  In his first statement, the applicant said he was born in Bangladesh, and was a visitor who had become an Indian national after his family moved to India to seek refuge from persecution in the former.  In his second statement, he claimed to be an Indian-born Hindu.  The persecution he later claimed to fear was from Indian Hindu Nationalists, the Communist Party in West Bengal, and the Student Federation of India, all of whom, he claims, seek to harm him because of his work to improve the welfare of Bangladeshi Hindus in India.  He claims that the local authorities will not protect him, because naturalised Indians are regarded as aliens. 

The applicant was unable to provide any specific evidence to substantiate his allegations.  The Tribunal noted that he was able to travel freely, using his passport, including to New Zealand on two occasions.  On no occasion did he seek protection as a refugee.  Each time he travelled, he voluntarily returned home and was not harmed on his return.  The Tribunal said that independent country information suggested that the Indian government was generally supportive of Bangladeshis resident in India, and that they were not subjected to violence or persecution.  In the result, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations.

The applicant sought judicial review of that decision by the Federal Magistrates Court (Scarlett FM).  In dismissing the application, the Federal Magistrate held that the Tribunal had not exceeded or failed to exercise its jurisdiction, did not show bias, did not ignore any of the applicant's claims, and did not fail to accord the applicant procedural fairness. 

The applicant appealed from the decision of the Federal Magistrate to the Federal Court (Magdwick J).  In dismissing the application, the Federal Court held that the grounds of appeal advanced by the applicant failed to have regard to the express terms of the Tribunal's decision, and did not expose any jurisdictional error on its part.

The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.  The arguments pressed largely reiterate the assertions put to the Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court. 

None of the arguments of the applicant raise any question of law for this Court to consider.  In particular, they do not show that there was any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal in drawing the inferences of fact that it did.  Any appeal to this Court would have no prospect of success.  The application must, therefore, be dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application for special leave falls to be dealt with in accordance with rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application and I publish the disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 9.42 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED