SZNKO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2013] HCASL 147

SZNKO

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 147
S51/2013

1. The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, arrived in Australia on 17 July 2008 and applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 29 August 2008.  He claimed to fear harm from "Muslim fundamentalist and terrorist groups" and the Awami League.  On 24 November 2008, a delegate of the first respondent refused the application.

2. On 4 October 2011, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") found that the applicant lacked credibility and affirmed the delegate's decision. An earlier Tribunal decision (made by a differently constituted Tribunal) had been set aside by the Federal Court of Australia due to that Tribunal's failure to comply with its obligations under s 424A(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in relation to the disclosure of a letter which had influenced its decision.

3. On 2 October 2012, the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (Nicholls FM) dismissed an application for review of the later Tribunal's decision.  The applicant claimed that the first respondent had made jurisdictional errors and that the decision was capricious and unreasonable.  It was said that the Tribunal had unfairly required the applicant to provide an explanation for the similarities between a letter provided by the applicant and one provided by another Protection visa applicant in a different matter.  Nicholls FM held that the Tribunal had only used the letter as an additional matter which further brought into question the applicant's credibility, not as the basis for its finding.  The remaining grounds, not pressed in this Court, were rejected.

4. On 25 February 2013, the Federal Court of Australia (Barker J) dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of Nicholls FM.  The main issues were whether the Tribunal's decision was irrational, illogical or not based on findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds, or one which no rational or logical decision-maker could arrive on the same evidence.  Barker J was not satisfied that Nicholls FM erred in resolving either of these issues, and the remaining ground was not made out.

5. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court relying on the same points advanced below.  No reason to doubt the correctness of Barker J's decision has been shown.  Special leave to appeal should be refused.

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

S.M. Kiefel
4 September 2013 P.A. Keane