SZLDK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] HCASL 487

SZLDK
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 487
S275/2008

The applicant is a citizen of India who claims to fear persecution in that country for political reasons and because of his Muslim religious beliefs.  On 10 July 2007, the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse his application for a protection visa.

The applicant identified his claims as stemming from a fire at a school in Tamil Nadu in July 2004 when 94 children were killed.  The applicant was then employed as a driver at the school.  He claimed that the founder of the school was a member of the Hindu Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ("RSS") party, that he was threatened by the RSS not to give evidence in relation to the fire, that his house was damaged, and that he was told he would be killed if the Diraavida Munnaetra Kalakam party came into power.  When that party came into power in 2006, the applicant went into hiding.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant was threatened because he gave evidence to police about the fire.  However, it was not satisfied that those threats were made by reason of his religious beliefs or political opinion or for any other Convention reason.  Further, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would be denied adequate state protection on return to India.  The conclusion followed that he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason.

An application for an order to show cause why a remedy should not be granted under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates Court on 4 March 2008. After consideration of each of the applicant’s seven grounds of review, Cameron FM found no evidence of jurisdictional error. In his Honour’s view, the essential reason why the applicant’s claims failed before the Tribunal was that they did not disclose a Convention nexus.

An appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Graham J on 20 May 2008.  His Honour found no evidence of jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal or error on the part of the Federal Magistrate.

The application for special leave to appeal does not advance any question of law that would justify the intervention of this Court.  There are no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court.  Special leave is refused.

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

W.M.C. Gummow
28 August 2008 S.M. Kiefel