SZJTL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] HCASL 193

SZJTL
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 193
S540/2007

1. The applicant is a national of India.  After his arrival in Australia he sought a protection visa, claiming to be a "refugee" within the Refugees Convention and Protocol.  A delegate of the Minister refused his application which was founded on the applicant's alleged fear of persecution because of his political opinions.  The applicant claimed that he was involved in politics and supported a radical movement, the Peoples War Group ("PWG"), which had caused him to go into hiding in the jungle for a year.

2. The applicant sought review of the delegate's decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claims in their entirety.  It found that they were inconsistent, far-fetched and fanciful and inconsistent with independent country evidence.

3. The applicant sought judicial review from the Federal Magistrates Court (Driver FM). He complained that the Tribunal had breached s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Specifically, he complained about the use of passport and other material. The Tribunal rejected the complaint of a breach of s 424A of the Act in terms that do not attract the intervention of this Court.

4. The applicant appealed to the Federal Court of Australia. That court (Buchanan J) dismissed the appeal concluding that the essential reason for the Tribunal's assessment, adverse to the applicant, was the Tribunal's estimate of his credibility. The complaint based on s 424A of the Act was rejected.

5. The applicant has now sought special leave to appeal to this Court.  Nothing in the papers filed in support of the applicant's application suggests reason to doubt the decisions below or reasonable prospects of success in an appeal, were special leave granted.  Belatedly, the applicant has raised an issue based on s 420 of the Act.  However, this too appears to be without substance.  The applicant's claim for a protection visa was essentially rejected because he was disbelieved.  The application is dismissed.

6. 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
24 April 2008 J. D. Heydon