SZTAZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2015] HCASL 110

SZTAZ

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR

[2015] HCASL 110
S67/2015

1. The applicant is a citizen of India.  On 26 July 2012, he applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on the ground that he would face persecution based on his political opinions if he were returned to India.  On 27 November 2012, that application was refused by a delegate of the first respondent on the basis that the applicant's fear of persecution was not well‑founded and he could relocate safely and reasonably within India.

2. On 13 June 2013, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the decision of the delegate.  The Tribunal was prepared to accept that the applicant had suffered harm in 2007, but noted that there was no evidence that the applicant had suffered serious harm since then despite being in India for substantial periods of time.  The Tribunal therefore affirmed the delegate's decision that the applicant's fear of persecution in India was not well‑founded and was not satisfied there was a real risk the applicant would suffer serious harm in India.

3. On 1 October 2014, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Lloyd‑Jones J) dismissed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision.  Lloyd‑Jones J held that none of the pleaded grounds in the application demonstrated any error on the part of the Tribunal, nor did the record of the Tribunal's proceeding.

4. On 27 February 2015, the Federal Court of Australia (Siopis J) dismissed the applicant's appeal from the decision of the Federal Circuit Court.  Siopis J held that neither the two grounds of appeal, nor a broader examination of the decision, revealed error on the part of Lloyd‑Jones J.

5. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal from the decision of the Federal Court.  He requires an extension of time in which to do so.  The applicant's draft notice of appeal fails to disclose any reason to doubt the decision of Siopis J.  An appeal would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal to this Court.  It would therefore be futile to grant the applicant an extension of time.

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

S.M. Kiefel
18 June 2015 P.A. Keane