SZKTO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] HCASL 364

SZKTO
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 364
S115/2008

1. The applicant is a national of India who arrived in Australia in May 2006 and applied for a protection visa, claiming to be a refugee in accordance with the Refugees Convention and Protocol.  A delegate of the Minister refused his application.

2. The applicant then sought review by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). There followed a hearing, and a subsequent notice to the applicant pursuant to s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which produced a new claim. The applicant's original claim had been of fear of persecution by reason of political association with the BJP, one of India's largest political parties. The new claim asserted fear of persecution on the basis of caste. As the Tribunal noted, the applicant's claims were somewhat contradictory. The applicant was found not to be a credible witness. His evidence was vague and, in particular respects, implausible. The Tribunal rejected the claim that the applicant had been persecuted by the Congress Party, although it did accept that he had been a member of the BJP.

3. From the decision that Australia did not owe him protection obligations, the applicant sought an order for review by the Federal Magistrates Court (Smith FM).  The Federal Magistrate found no jurisdictional error, and dismissed the application.  An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Buchanan J) also failed.  The notice of appeal to that Court did not identify any specific error in the Federal Magistrate's reasons.  The Federal Court recorded that the applicant's arguments were essentially addressed to the factual merits of the case.  There was no warrant for its intervention.

4. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.  However, his written case does not meaningfully address the decisions below which he challenges.  We have examined the record to see whether there is any evidence of jurisdictional error, but we can find none.  An appeal to this Court would have no prospects of success.  The application is refused.

5. In accordance with Rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

M. D. Kirby
20 June 2008 J. D. Heydon