SZOSF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 32

SZOSF
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2012] HCASL 32
S377/2011

1. The applicant is a citizen of India.  He travelled to Australia in July 2008 to attend World Youth Day.  In August 2008, he applied for a protection visa.  His claim was rejected by a delegate of the Minister. 

2. The applicant applied for merits review of the delegate's decision before the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  He claimed to fear persecution on the grounds of his political activity and religious beliefs.  He gave an account of his involvement in the Kerala Students Union ("the KSU") for which involvement he said he had been attacked by the Communist Party student wing.  He also claimed to have been a "frontline worker" for the Kerala Catholic Youth Movement ("the KCYM").  He stated that Christians cannot lead a peaceful life in India. 

3. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had been involved with the KSU and with the KCYM.  It accepted his account of having been attacked by workers of the student wing of the Communist Party in 1999.  However, the Tribunal considered that the applicant had embellished the claims made in his original application in significant respects.  The Tribunal did not accept that Christians are unable to lead a peaceful life in India.  Nor did the Tribunal accept that there is a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted by the Bharatiya Janata Party or Hindu extremists by reason of his Catholic religious beliefs.  It did not accept that there is a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted by members of the Communist Party as the result of his involvement in the KSU 10 years earlier.  The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.

4. An application for judicial review was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates Court (Cameron FM). 

5. An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Siopis J) was dismissed. 

6. The applicant applies for special leave to appeal against the orders of the Federal Court.  He makes unparticularised assertions of a denial of procedural fairness and that the Tribunal's decision was made "without taking into account the full gravity of [his] circumstances".  His Written Case raises the complaints agitated below but does not engage with the reasoning of Siopis J in rejecting those complaints.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision below.  If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have no prospects of success.

7. The application is dismissed.

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

J.D. Heydon
29 February 2012 V.M. Bell