SZOVR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 34

SZOVR
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2012] HCASL 34
S381/2011

1. The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China ("the PRC").  He arrived in Australia on 21 April 2010 and applied for a protection visa on 25 May 2010.  A delegate of the Minister refused the application. 

2. The applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for merits review of the delegate's decision.  The applicant claims to fear persecution arising from the breach, by him and his wife, of the family planning regulations in the PRC. 

3. The Tribunal was critical of the credibility of the applicant's account.  It considered aspects of the account were implausible and, more generally, that it was "vague and virtually unsupported by any circumstantial detail".  The Tribunal accepted that the applicant and his wife wished to have more children and that their desires may be frustrated by the application of the PRC's family planning policies.  There was, however, no evidence that the applicant or his wife would be subject to discriminatory harm in the application of the policy, which is a law of general application.  The Tribunal was, for this reason, not satisfied that Australia owes protection obligations to the applicant.  It affirmed the delegate's decision.

4. The applicant unsuccessfully sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision before the Federal Magistrates Court (Barnes FM). 

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

6. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from the orders of the Federal Court.  None of the documents filed in support of the application engage with the reasoning of the Federal Court.  The applicant makes unparticularised assertions of jurisdictional error and bias on the part of the Tribunal member.  No foundation for either contention appears from the material filed in support of the application.  The application is a further attempt to challenge the merits of the Tribunal's determination.  The decision of the Federal Court was plainly correct. 

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