SZOWQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2011] HCASL 199

SZOWQ
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2011] HCASL 199
S302/2011

1. The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, arrived in Australia on 13 February 2010 and applied for a protection visa on 25 March 2010.  In his application, the applicant claimed that he feared facing serious harm in Bangladesh because of his conversion to Christianity which took place whilst he was living in Greece.  The applicant also contended that he is unable to return to Greece, where he is a permanent resident, as he faces persecution by members of the Bangladeshi community.  He cited an incident that occurred during his time in Greece in support of his claim.

2. A delegate of the first respondent refused the application on 2 August 2010.  The second respondent, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), affirmed the delegate's decision on 2 December 2010.

3. The application was refused on the basis that the applicant had a legally enforceable right to enter and reside in Greece within the meaning of s 36(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") and the applicant had not taken all possible steps to avail himself of that right. The Tribunal rejected the claims concerning the harm he claimed to have experienced in Greece and found that the applicant lacked credibility and noted various inconsistencies in his evidence. The applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision in the Federal Magistrates Court (Driver FM) advancing complaints with respect to the merits. On 12 April 2011, Driver FM dismissed the application and found that the Tribunal accepted that the applicant engaged in Christian worship whilst living in Australia, and that the applicant's submissions respecting s 91R(3) of the Act were misconceived. Further, his Honour concluded that the Tribunal complied with its obligations under s 424A of the Act and that the Tribunal's application of s 36(3) did not reveal error.

4. On 12 August 2011, the Federal Court (Bromberg J) dismissed the appeal against the findings of Driver FM, holding there was no jurisdictional error in the Federal Magistrate's decision.

5. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from the decision of Bromberg J.  The applicant would enjoy insufficient prospects of success on an appeal to this Court.  Special leave is refused.

6. 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
1 December 2011 S.M. Kiefel