SZLBJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] HCASL 450

SZLBJ
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 450
S205/2008

1. The applicant is a national of Pakistan.  He arrived in Australia in January 2007 and promptly applied for a protection visa, claiming to be a "refugee" within the Refugees Convention and Protocol ("the Convention").  In February 2007, a delegate of the Minister refused the application.  The applicant then sought review by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  In June 2007, the Tribunal refused review and affirmed the decision of the delegate rejecting the applicant's claim.

2. Against this decision, the applicant sought judicial review from the Federal Magistrates Court.  In January 2008, Cameron FM rejected the application, finding no jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.  In May 2008, Flick J, exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court, dismissed the applicant's appeal.

3. The applicant's claim to refugee status was based upon his alleged fear of persecution on political grounds.  He claimed to have been a member of the PML-N group and that, in 2006, members of a competing group, PML-Q had attacked his family home and murdered two of his cousins.  He asserted that police did not act to arrest the murderers.  He also claimed that his son had been kidnapped and only released after the applicant did not give evidence in relation to the attack on the family home.  At the hearing before the Tribunal, the applicant also raised further claims of harassment and physical attacks.

4. Pursuant to s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), the Tribunal drew attention to various suggested inconsistencies in the applicant's claims and sought responses. Although documentary evidence was provided, the Tribunal found the applicant a most unsatisfactory witness. It identified several major inconsistencies in his evidence. Specifically it described his oral evidence as evasive and unresponsive.

5. In the Federal Magistrates Court, the applicant's grounds for judicial review were essentially based on the factual merits of the Tribunal's decision.  Because it found no jurisdictional error, the Federal Magistrates Court dismissed the application.

6. In the Federal Court, the applicant sought to add new grounds.  These were rejected by Flick J in unremarkable terms that do not call for the intervention by this Court.

7. The applicant's draft notice of appeal is of a template variety.  The suggested jurisdictional error raises factual assertions only and would enjoy no reasonable prospects of success in this Court.  No ground for our intervention is demonstrated.  The adverse finding of the Tribunal is based wholly on its rejection of the credibility of the applicant, founded, in turn, on profound inconsistencies in his evidence.  The application is therefore dismissed.

8. 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