SZQFL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 48

SZQFL
 v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2012] HCASL 48
S398/2011

1. The applicant, a citizen of India, arrived in Australia on 31 July 2010 and applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 9 September 2010.  A delegate of the first respondent refused the application on 26 November 2010.  The second respondent, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), affirmed the delegate's decision on 6 April 2011.

2. The applicant claimed to be a Muslim and that he had been pursued by Hindu extremists because of his involvement in charitable activities within the Al-Ilahi Muslim Welfare Association.  The applicant further claimed that he had a romantic involvement with the daughter of a leading figure in the Rastriya Swayam Sevak Sang ("RSS") and that because of their romantic involvement the father murdered his daughter.  The RSS is an extremist Hindu militant group.

3. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse to grant a protection visa on the basis that the applicant's claims lacked credibility, highlighting a number of implausibilities and inconsistencies throughout the applicant's evidence.  The Tribunal also noted records indicating that the applicant had returned to his home city on approximately eight occasions in the course of five years, which is inconsistent with a well-founded fear of persecution.

4. The applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal's decision in the Federal Magistrates Court.  On 28 July 2011, Emmett FM dismissed the application.

5. The applicant appealed to the Federal Court.  The applicant relied on grounds of jurisdictional error by the Tribunal in the treatment of documentary evidence.  On 10 November 2011, Collier J found no jurisdictional error had occurred and dismissed the appeal.

6. The applicant's written submissions on an application for special leave to appeal the decision of the Federal Court do not identify any reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Federal Court.  An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospects of success.  Special leave is refused.

7. 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
29 March 2012 S.M. Kiefel