SZQAU & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 33

SZQAU & ORS
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2012] HCASL 33
S379/2011

1. The applicants are a husband and wife and their son, who was born in 2005.  They are citizens of Bangladesh.  They arrived in Australia on 8 February 2010 and applied for protection visas shortly thereafter.  The applicant husband claimed to fear persecution in Bangladesh because of his active involvement with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party ("the BNP").  He claimed to have been targeted by the Awami League after it came to power in December 2008.  The claims of the wife and son were derivative as members of the husband's family unit[1]. 

   [1]Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 36(2)(b).

2. The applicant husband submitted a number of documents in support of his application.  These included photographs, which appeared to depict him in the company of leaders of the BNP, and a newspaper article.  The article referred to the applicant and to an incident in which he had been attacked by political opponents. 

3. A document examiner concluded that the photographs submitted in support of the husband's application were fake.  The Minister's delegate suspected that the article was also fabricated.  The husband was advised of these concerns.  He maintained that the photographs and the article were authentic.  The delegate refused the application. 

4. The applicants sought merits review of the delegate's decision before the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  The husband furnished the Tribunal with additional documents in support of his claims.  In the course of the hearing, the Tribunal raised with the husband its concerns that the newspaper article and the photographs were forgeries.  It drew his attention to country information indicating a very high level of document fraud in Bangladesh. 

5. The Tribunal rejected the husband's evidence.  It was not satisfied that he had been an active member of the BNP or that he had developed a political profile in Bangladesh.  It characterised some of his claims as confused and implausible.  It did not accept that any weight could be placed upon any of the documents submitted in support of the claims.  It affirmed the delegate's decision.

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

7. An appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court of Australia (Flick J). 

8. The applicants apply for special leave to appeal from the orders of the Federal Court.  Their three grounds of challenge mirror the grounds taken below.  Their Written Case does not advance any challenge to the reasoning of Flick J in rejecting each of those grounds.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of that decision.  If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have no prospects of success. 

9. The application is dismissed.

10. 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