SZKSU v Minister For Immigration And Citizenship and Anor

[2008] HCASL 454

SZKSU
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 454
S223/2008

1. The applicant is a national of India.  He arrived in Australia in May 2006 and promptly applied for a protection visa claiming to be a "refugee" within the Refugees Convention and Protocol. 

2. In September 2006 a delegate of the Minister refused the application.  That decision was then the subject of an application for review by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  It rejected the claim.  There followed review in the Federal Magistrates Court.  In that Court, Orchiston FM, in January 2008, dismissed the application, rejecting the various asserted claims of jurisdictional error.  Her Honour's orders were then the subject of an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia.  In that Court, Flick J perceived the appeal as, in actuality, an impermissible attempt to procure merits review.  His Honour found no error either in the decision of the Federal Magistrate or in the approach and conclusion of the Tribunal.  It is from the orders of the Federal Court that the applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.

3. The foundation of the applicant's claim for protection was his asserted fear of persecution on political grounds, by virtue of his membership of the Telugu Desam Party ("TDP") in India. On this ground, the applicant claimed that he had been attacked by members of the Congress Party. He said that the attacks had occurred because of welfare activities he performed for the poor on behalf of the TDP. Pursuant to s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), the Tribunal sought further information and drew attention to suggested inconsistencies in the applicant's claims. At the conclusion of its consideration of the entirety of the evidence, the Tribunal noted the remaining inconsistencies; rejected the suggested bases of "persecution"; and concluded that the applicant was not a truthful witness.

4. The Federal Magistrate rejected complaints of bias; suggested procedural errors; and alleged unfairness in the conduct of the Tribunal hearing.  Her Honour found no jurisdictional error.  These conclusions were affirmed, in unremarkable terms, by Flick J in the Federal Court.

5. In this Court, the applicant persists with his claims of bias; the suggested procedural errors; and a complaint that the Federal Court had erred in failing to listen to a sound recording of the Tribunal hearing.  Otherwise, the application is devoted to factual assertions.

6. We are unconvinced that the propounded grounds are reasonably arguable in this Court.  Specifically, we find no evidence of bias on the part of the Tribunal.  To the contrary, it appears to have assiduously sought to identify and assess the applicant's claims.  There are no prospects of success, were special leave granted to appeal to this Court.  The application is accordingly dismissed.

7. 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