SZQPX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2013] HCASL 9

SZQPX

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 9
S291/2012

1. The applicant is of Bangladeshi nationality.

2. On 12 August 2011, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") dismissed an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the first respondent refusing the applicant a protection visa.  The applicant claimed to have been persecuted on grounds of political opinion, ethnicity and religion.  The Tribunal found his claims to be insufficiently detailed and, accordingly, not credible.  Though it accepted he had experienced some discrimination, it found that his difficulties did not rise to the threshold of persecution. 

3. On 28 February 2012, the Federal Magistrates Court (Driver FM) dismissed an application for review of the Tribunal's decision.  In particular, Driver FM denied that the Tribunal was obliged to investigate the contents of a letter relied on by the applicant purportedly from the president of the political party of which the applicant claimed to be an office bearer. 

4. On 7 September 2012, the Federal Court of Australia (Cowdroy J) dismissed an appeal.  In relation to the letter, his Honour noted that the Tribunal had offered to telephone the author, but the applicant had expressed doubt that it would be convenient for the author to be telephoned at that moment.  In fact, Driver FM had found that a five hour time difference between Australia and Bangladesh would not have made it inconvenient for the author to be telephoned at the end of the hearing.  There was nothing to indicate that any further inquiry by the Tribunal would have yielded a useful result.

5. To a large extent the papers filed in support of the applicant's application for special leave to appeal to this Court are devoted to a description of the factual background.  The primary point which the applicant makes is that the Tribunal should have called the author of the letter.  But it was for the applicant to provide to the Tribunal any further material which the author could have supplied. 

6. If special leave were granted, an appeal would have very remote prospects of success.  For that reason the application must be dismissed. 

7. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.D. Heydon
26 February 2013 V.M. Bell