SZQJE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 49

SZQJE
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2012] HCASL 49
S400/2011

1. The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia in September 2010.  On 5 October 2010, the applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa.  On 2 February 2011, a delegate of the first respondent refused the application. 

2. On 26 May 2011, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the delegate's decision.  The applicant claimed to fear persecution on the ground of political opinion.  He claimed to have held a leadership role within the Bangladesh Nationalist Party ("BNP"), to have been attacked by members of the Awami League on three separate occasions, and to have been threatened by the police and the Rapid Action Battalion (a paramilitary force).  The Tribunal formed an adverse view of the applicant's credibility.  The Tribunal noted that his application contained phrases identical to two other applications that had come before the Tribunal, even though the applicant claimed to have prepared his application without assistance.  The Tribunal also observed, among other things, that the applicant's evidence about the BNP was very vague and that aspects of his claims were inconsistent with country information.  

3. On 13 September 2011, the Federal Magistrates Court (Scarlett FM) dismissed the applicant's application for review of the Tribunal's decision. The applicant raised three grounds of review: that the Tribunal had failed to consider his claim under s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth); that the Tribunal had denied him natural justice in its treatment of his documentary evidence; and that the Tribunal took into account irrelevant considerations in assessing his credibility. Scarlett FM held that none of the three grounds were made out. His Honour held that there was no evidence to engage s 91R and, in any event, it had been open to the Tribunal to make adverse credibility findings about the applicant and to disbelieve the authenticity of documents he produced.

4. On 14 November 2011, the Federal Court of Australia (Bennett J) dismissed the applicant's appeal. Bennett J held that there had been no error in respect of s 91R. Her Honour also agreed with Scarlett FM's finding that it was open to the Tribunal, for the reasons it gave, to make adverse credibility findings about the applicant and to place little weight on the applicant's documentary evidence.

5. The applicant's application for special leave to appeal to this Court in effect repeats the complaints relied on in the courts below.  Those complaints should be rejected for the reasons given below.  The application does not advance any question of law that would justify the grant of special leave to appeal, and the applicant enjoys insufficient prospects of success to warrant such a grant. 

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	S.M. Kiefel
29 March 2012