SZTXE v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2015] HCASL 167

SZTXE

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR

[2015] HCASL 167
S118/2015

1. The applicant is an Indian citizen who applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa, claiming that he feared harm if he returned to India because of his family's long standing support of the political party, the BJP.  A delegate of the first respondent refused the applicant's application on 29 July 2013, and the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the delegate's decision on 28 January 2014.  The Tribunal had advised the applicant that it was unable to make a favourable decision on the information before it and invited him to attend a hearing.  The applicant did not attend the hearing and provided no further information or evidence in support of his claims.  The Tribunal found that it had insufficient evidence to be satisfied that the events and circumstances raised by the applicant were factual, and was therefore not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. 

2. On 26 February 2015, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Nicholls J) dismissed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision.  Nicholls J held that, in the circumstances, the Tribunal had not acted unreasonably in proceeding to make its decision in the absence of the applicant, that the Tribunal had engaged with the claims and material before it, and that there was no legal error in the reasons of the Tribunal.

3. On 21 May 2015, the Federal Court of Australia (Flick J) dismissed the applicant's appeal.  Flick J held that the Tribunal had unquestionably considered the claims made by the applicant, there was no error exposed in the Tribunal's exercise of discretion to proceed in the absence of the applicant, and the applicant had been given an adequate opportunity to present his claim.

4. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.  His application makes unparticularised complaints that do not identify any error of law in the decisions below.  There is no basis for the applicant's contentions that he has been denied procedural fairness.   An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospects of success and therefore special leave should be refused.

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

S.M. Kiefel
15 October 2015 P.A. Keane