SZKBF v Minister For Immigration And Citizenship and Anor

[2008] HCASL 60

SZKBF
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 60
S428/2007

1. This is an application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Federal Court of Australia (Mansfield J).  That court dismissed an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court (Cameron FM).  That court, in turn, had dismissed an application for judicial review directed to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  In December 2006, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. 

2. The applicant is a national of India.  He is of Tamil ethnicity and is Hindu.  He claimed a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of political opinion.  This was based on alleged attacks on his business and threats to himself said to have been made by members of the opposition PNK party in his home State of Tamil Nadu.  He attributed these attacks to his prominence in the community as a political activist and to his support for the local MNK candidate.  He asserted that he was unable to secure protection from police on the basis of the influence of the local PNK candidate.  However, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not a witness of truth.  It did not accept his evidence as to the level of his political involvement; of being assaulted, tortured or oppressed; or that he had left India due to fear of persecution.  It pointed to the fact that he had spent some time in Thailand "idling" on six occasions and rejected the contention that this was done to let the situation in Tamil Nadu "settle down".

3. In his written case before this Court, the applicant refers, in a template fashion, to the decision of the Court in the Muin litigation.  Although the applicant maintains his complaint that the Tribunal displayed a want of good faith towards his claim and had made up its mind in advance of its hearing to dismiss his application, these contentions are not established in the record.  There would be no prospect that they would succeed in this Court, were special leave granted.

4. Special leave must therefore be refused.            Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

M. D. Kirby
27 March 2008 J. D. Heydon