SZINM v MIAC & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 780

[2007] HCATrans 780

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S151 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZINM

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 WEDNESDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2007, AT 9.30 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant, a citizen of India, arrived in Australia on 5 October 2005.  On 4 November 2005 a delegate of the first respondent refused the applicant's application for a protection visa.  The applicant claimed to have suffered persecution at the hands of extremist Hindus on account of his membership of the Indian Union Muslim League ("the IUML").  The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") noted that the applicant's evidence was vague and that a letter he sought to rely on as evidence of his membership of IUML was fraudulent.  The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was a member of IUML and rejected his application.  

On 29 September 2006 Scarlett FM dismissed the application for review of the Tribunal's decision.  His Honour found that the Tribunal had fully and completely considered the applicant's claim to have a well‑founded fear of persecution, and its consideration of the fraudulent letter involved no denial of procedural fairness to the applicant.

Downes J dismissed the applicant's appeal to the Federal Court on 7 March 2007.  The applicant's ten grounds for appeal were general and lacked specificity, and his Honour stated that he could find no error of law in the decisions of the Federal Magistrate and the Tribunal.

The applicant's draft notice of appeal is of a template variety and does not meaningfully address the decision below.  The 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. 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 Kiefel J and myself.

AT 9.32 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED