SZHUP v MIAC & Anor

[2008] HCATrans 36

[2008] HCATrans 036

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S214 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZHUP

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

KIRBY J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 7 FEBRUARY 2008, AT 9.05 AM 

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a national of India.  He arrived in Australia in October 2004 and promptly sought a protection visa.  He claimed to be a "refugee" within the Refugees Convention and Protocol given effect by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act").

A delegate of the Minister refused the application.  The applicant then sought review by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was owed protection obligations and rejected his application.

An application for judicial review to the Federal Magistrates Court was refused by Lindsay FM.  No legal or jurisdictional error was found.  That decision was confirmed by the Federal Court of Australia (Buchanan J exercising the appellate jurisdiction).  From the order of the Federal Court, the applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.

The applicant claims to fear persecution because he is a Muslim businessman who was attacked by "Hindu fanatics" after he declined to make increased contributions to a local Hindu temple.  He claims that his shop was burnt; that police refused to investigate the attack and threatened him with false charges; and that he moved from his home town to Delhi but continued to receive threats there.

These claims were rejected by the Tribunal which pointed to various inconsistencies of a factual kind. The applications for judicial review were formulaic. There is no substance in the complaint of a breach by the Tribunal of the requirements of s 424A of the Act.

The application to this Court does not meaningfully address the decisions of the courts below.  There would be no prospect of success were special leave granted.  The application is therefore dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented and has filed a written case, his application has been dealt with in accordance with rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules.  Pursuant to rule 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.  I publish that disposition signed by Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.07 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED