SZITZ v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 359

[2007] HCATrans 359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S427 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZITZ

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 9.42 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a citizen of India.  He arrived in Australia on 20 November 2005, and immediately applied for a protection visa.  His application was refused by a delegate of the first respondent on 15 February 2006.  The applicant sought review of that decision in the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). 

The applicant claimed to be a Sikh who was heavily involved in the Akali Dal Badal Group Party ("the ADBGP") in the Punjab region.  He claimed to be a leader of the ADBGP, and as a result to have attracted the attention of the ruling Congress Party and Bharatiya Janata Party ("the BJP").  He claimed that from March 2002 he suffered persecution because of his political beliefs, including being approached by people demanding ADBGP documents, attacks upon his home, and violence against his family.  He claims to have been arrested on false charges, beaten and punished for non-compliance with court orders of which he claims not to have been notified.  He says that he would be killed if he were to return to India. 

The Tribunal was concerned that the applicant provided no evidence to corroborate his claims.  He chose not to attend the hearing at which he might have clarified and substantiated the events he described in his application.  The Tribunal observed that it is not enough that person claim to fear persecution; the fear must be "well-founded" and supported by evidence presented by the applicant.  In the absence of evidence to substantiate his claims, the Tribunal was unable to find 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).  He claimed that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of his case, adding that he had been working to prevent Pakistani drug production and dealing in India.  The Federal Magistrate dismissed the application, noting that the information about drug trafficking appeared irrelevant to his claims of persecution on the basis of his political opinion.  The findings made by the Tribunal were held to be open to it on the evidence before it.  The Federal Magistrate concluded that no jurisdictional error had been demonstrated on the part of the Tribunal.

The applicant appealed from the decision of the Federal Magistrate to the Federal Court (Middleton J).  The applicant argued that the Magistrate had erred in finding no error on the part of the Tribunal; that he had been denied natural justice by the Federal Magistrate; and that his claims were given insufficient consideration.  The Court held that the findings made by the Tribunal were open on the evidence before it, and that the Federal Magistrate was not in error in affirming the decision of it on that basis.  In addition, the Court confirmed that the Federal Magistrate committed no error by refusing to grant the applicant an extension of time.  The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.  He argues that the decision of the Federal Court was erroneous because it did not find that the Tribunal's decision was affected by jurisdictional error.  He adds that the Tribunal failed to follow proper procedures when considering his application. 

The applicant does not identify any question of law justifying a grant of special leave to this Court.  He does not identify any jurisdictional error and fails to raise any matter that would lead us to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Federal Court.  Any appeal to this Court would have no prospects 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 9.45 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED