SZOZO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2011] HCASL 205
SZOZO
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2011] HCASL 205
S307/2011
The applicant is a citizen of India and arrived in Australia on 19 May 2008. He applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 17 June 2010. On 25 October 2010, a delegate of the first respondent refused his application.
On 13 January 2011, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the delegate's decision. The applicant claimed that he was a religious Sikh who feared persecution on the ground of his political opinion in relation to the Sikh community in India. He claimed he was victimised by Indian authorities and Hindi extremists, including being detained and tortured by police. On 9 December 2010, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that it was unable to make a favourable decision on the information before it and inviting him to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing on 12 January 2011. The applicant did not attend the hearing or contact the Tribunal to explain his non-attendance, and the Tribunal decided to make its decision without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear before it. The Tribunal held that it was unable to be satisfied that the applicant will suffer serious harm if he returns to India and therefore could not conclude that Australia owed protection obligations to him.
On 1 April 2011, the Federal Magistrates Court (Scarlett FM) dismissed the applicant's application for a review of the Tribunal's decision. The grounds advanced by the applicant reiterated the factual merits of the applicant's claim to be a refugee and did not allege any jurisdictional error by the Tribunal. Scarlett FM held that there was nothing to show that the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error. The exercise by the Tribunal of its discretion to make its decision without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear before it had not miscarried.
On 19 August 2011, the Federal Court of Australia (Reeves J) dismissed the applicant's appeal. His Honour held that Scarlett FM considered the matters put to him by the applicant and was correct to conclude that the applicant sought, impermissibly, to review the merits of the Tribunal's decision. Further, the Tribunal did not exceed its powers by making its decision without taking further action to enable the applicant to appear before it.
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