SZJJS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] HCASL 474

SZJJS
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 474
S229/2008

1. The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. On 11 April 2006 a delegate of the first respondent refused his application for a protection visa. On 31 August 2006 the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision. The applicant claimed to fear persecution as a stateless Bihari. He claimed that he had been raised in a refugee camp, and that the shop which he opened in 1991 had been destroyed by local "bandits", to whom he had refused to pay protection money. The applicant claimed to have been forced into hiding in Palau, from 1997 to 2005. The Tribunal drew various inconsistencies to the applicant's attention, as required by s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), but ultimately found that he was not a credible witness. The Tribunal did not accept that he was a stateless Bihari, finding instead that he was a Bangladeshi citizen. The Tribunal found that the applicant was not owed protection obligations under the Convention.

2. On 26 November 2007 the Federal Magistrates Court (Raphael FM) dismissed an application for review of the Tribunal's decision.  His Honour dismissed the applicant's complaint that the Tribunal had failed to consider documents provided in support of his application.  There was no basis to the claim that the Tribunal had acted in excess of its jurisdiction, in finding that there was no chance that the applicant would be persecuted because he was a Bihari.  The Tribunal had simply found that he was a citizen of Bangladesh:  a factual finding that was open to it.

3. On 13 May 2008 the Federal Court (Greenwood J) dismissed the applicant's appeal.  The applicant reiterated the claims advanced below, and did not seek to demonstrate any error in the Federal Magistrate's decision.  His Honour found no error in the Tribunal's decision or that of Raphael FM.

4. The applicant's application for special leave to appeal to this Court does not advance any question of law.  It essentially reiterates the claims made before the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court, without seeking to demonstrate any particular error in the decisions below.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of those decisions.

1. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

W.M.C. Gummow	S.M. Kiefel
28 August 2008