SZJXB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] HCASL 459

SZJXB
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 459
S251/2008

1. The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh.  The Refugee Review Tribunal upheld a decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse the applicant a protection visa.

2. The applicant claimed to fear persecution as a homosexual.  In particular he claimed to fear ostracism from the family of his former partner after the latter's suicide in 1997. 

3. The Tribunal set out what it called "a great deal of evidence" that "homosexuals in Bangladesh can face discrimination and in some cases serious harm because of their sexual orientation."  It continued:  "However, for the purposes of this decision the threshold issue is whether [the applicant] is indeed a homosexual."

4. The factors which the Tribunal then set out as causing it not to be satisfied that the applicant was a homosexual can be summarised as follows.  First, the applicant's evidence that a particular event during his relationship with a partner whom he said had committed suicide was "vague and inconsistent", despite the Tribunal considering that it would be reasonable to expect the applicant to recall particular aspects of it with clarity.  Secondly, much of his evidence was not corroborated.  Thirdly, his evidence about another relationship was so unconvincing as to cast considerable doubt on its truth.  Finally, there were many other instances of vagueness, ignorance, inconsistency and implausibility.  To some extent the appellant challenges these factual aspects of the Tribunal's reasoning, which was detailed and apparently careful, but, whether it was right or wrong, a factual challenge as such is not open.

5. The Federal Magistrates Court (Lloyd-Jones FM) dismissed the applicant's application for judicial review.  He rejected numerous complaints that jurisdictional error had been committed as being without foundation.

6. The Federal Court of Australia (Greenwood J) dismissed an appeal on the ground that Lloyd-Jones FM had not fallen into error.

7. The papers filed by the applicant in support of his application for special leave to appeal to this Court are largely formulaic in character, lacking in particularity and lacking in factual support.  Some of the grounds relied on ignore the Tribunal's threshold factual conclusion that it could not be satisfied that the applicant was a homosexual.  If special leave were granted, an appeal would have no prospect of success.

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

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