SZOPV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2011] HCASL 198
SZOPV
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2011] HCASL 198
S296/2011
The applicant is a citizen of India and arrived in Australia on 11 October 2009. On 22 April 2010, a delegate of the first respondent refused his application for a Protection (Class XA) visa.
On 18 August 2010, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the delegate's decision. The applicant claimed to fear persecution on the grounds of political opinion, in particular, as a result of his political activities with the Akhila Bharatiya Vidhyarthi Parishad ("ABVP"), towards which some other political parties were hostile. He alleges that he was falsely implicated in numerous criminal matters, including a murder, as well as being physically and mentally harassed by some members of certain political parties hostile to ABVP. The Tribunal found the applicant lacked credibility. It found his evidence as to his political activity to be vague and inconsistent, that his personal circumstances were not consistent with his claims of continual harassment, and that his evidence in relation to alleged false criminal cases against him was vague, inconsistent and unsupported by the documentary evidence he provided.
On 24 March 2011, the Federal Magistrates Court (Barnes FM) dismissed the applicant's application for review of the Tribunal's decision. The applicant claimed the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error by failing to address certain aspects of the applicant's claims in the way they were made. Her Honour observed that the Tribunal carefully considered each aspect of the applicant's claims. Her Honour held that no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal was established by the applicant.
On 11 August 2011, the Federal Court (Bromberg J) dismissed the applicant's appeal. His Honour found that the new grounds of complaint raised by the applicant against the Tribunal had no prospects of success and it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to raise them. As to the remaining ground, his Honour held that the applicant did not demonstrate error on the part of the Federal Magistrate or jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
The application to this Court does not advance any questions of law that would justify the grant of special leave to appeal. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions below.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.
W.M.C. Gummow S.M. Kiefel 1 December 2011
0
0