SZLMZ & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2008] HCASL 564

SZLMZ & ANOR
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 564
S378/2008

1. The applicants, husband and wife, are nationals of India.  They arrived in Australia in March 2007 and applied for protection visas in May 2007, claiming to be "refugees" within to the Refugees Convention and Protocol.  A delegate of the Minister refused the application.  The applicants then applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for review.  The specific claims and relevant evidence were given by the applicant husband, the claims of the applicant wife being derivative. 

2. The husband deposed that he had been persecuted by Muslims after employees of his jewellery shop had defrauded him.  He claimed that this had left him with debts to customers, including two Muslim men who had caused him to be arrested.  The applicant husband claimed that he had been subjected to ongoing threats.  He stated that he had relocated within India but had been discovered by his adversaries.  He claimed to have been attacked on two occasions.  He also claimed that Muslim creditors had sought revenge against him on the basis of his father's imputed role in the Gujarat train incident of communal violence.

3. The Tribunal did not accept the applicant husband's claim that he had been targeted for reasons of his religion.  It did not accept that the creditors were motivated by religion.  It therefore rejected the claim that the applicant husband had been harmed for a Convention reason.  The application for review was dismissed.

4. The applicant then sought judicial review from the Federal Magistrates Court.  In that court, Lloyd-Jones FM rejected the arguments complaining about the determinations of the Tribunal.  Specifically, he rejected the contention that the Tribunal had based its decision on relocation.  In the factual conclusions reached by the Tribunal, there was no need to consider that issue.  The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

5. An appeal was then taken to the Federal Court of Australia. That court was constituted by Logan J. His Honour found that the Tribunal had made no error of law, still less one of jurisdiction. He rejected a suggestion that the Tribunal had failed to comply with s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). The appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed.

6. The application to this Court is founded on a suggestion by the applicants that the Tribunal adopted an incorrect and unduly harsh approach to the meaning of persecution and that it had denied him natural justice. There is also an unparticularised assertion of breach of s 424A of the Act. A complaint is added about the quality of the interpretation of the proceedings before the Tribunal.

7. None of the foregoing matters warrants a grant of special leave to appeal to this Court.  The grounds presented do not enjoy reasonable prospects of success.  No issue of law or of general principle is raised to warrant the intervention of this Court.  No evidence supports the applicant's allegation of procedural unfairness.  The result is that the application is dismissed. 

8. 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	J. D. Heydon
2 December 2008