SZJJC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] HCASL 455

SZJJC
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 455
S224/2008

1. The applicant is a national of India.  He arrived in Australia in January 2006 and applied for a protection visa on the ground that he was a "refugee" within the Refugees Convention and Protocol.  In April 2006 a delegate of the Minister refused the application.  There were then proceedings before the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") with which this application is not concerned.  Ultimately, on 8 May 2007, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.  An application for judicial review from the Federal Magistrates Court was rejected in December 2007 by Cameron FM.  His Honour found no jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.  An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia was dismissed on 6 May 2008 by Flick J.  His Honour rejected various claims of non-compliance with the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), in particular ss 424A and 430. It is from the Federal Court's orders that the applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.

2. The basis of the applicant's claim to fear of persecution was his asserted former membership of the Peoples War Group ("PWG").  The applicant stated that this was a militant group of which he had been an active member but that, after his marriage, he decided to sever his connections with the group.  He said that this led to threats from the organisation; that he had been persecuted in India on the basis of his Muslim religion; and that he had been targeted by Hindus because he was a successful Muslim businessman.

3. Pursuant to s 424A of the Act, the Tribunal sought further information from the applicant because of identified inconsistencies in his statements. No response was received.

4. The Tribunal rejected most of the applicant's claims.  Whilst it accepted that his business might have suffered during inter-communal violence in India, it rejected claims that the applicant had been a member of PWG.  It noted his limited knowledge about that organisation.  It found that his evidence was inconsistent with independent country information about the PWG.  Ultimately, it rejected all of his claims of political involvement and hence the foundation of his primary claim for protection.  It also noted inconsistencies in his claim so far as it was based on alleged religious persecution.

5. The Federal Magistrate found no jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.  The Federal Court rejected the appeal in terms that are unremarkable and do not call for the intervention of this Court. 

6. The applicant's draft notice of appeal makes unparticularised assertions of errors of law and deficiencies in the Tribunal's reasons.  The written case contains suggestions of bias and procedural unfairness.  However, none of these are particularised, still less made out or shown to be reasonably arguable.

7. On this basis, the application is dismissed.  Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.

M.D. Kirby
7 August 2008 J.D. Heydon