WZAQX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2013] HCASL 87

WZAQX

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 87
P11/2013

1. The applicant is a citizen of India who arrived in Australia on 12 December 2008 on a temporary higher education visa as a dependant spouse of the primary temporary higher education visa holder.  The applicant and his wife separated in late December 2008 and were divorced on 24 April 2011.  On 12 October 2010, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship cancelled the applicant's visa as he was no longer in a genuine and continuing relationship with the primary visa holder.

2. On 9 June 2011, the applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa.  He claimed that his ex‑wife's family would commit violence against him if he returned to India in retribution for the dissolution of his marriage.  A delegate of the first respondent refused to grant the protection visa on credibility grounds.  It was further decided that there was no Convention nexus in respect of the fears of harm claimed because, even if the claims were accepted, they disclosed a family dispute in respect of which State protection was available.

3. On 5 March 2012, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the delegate's decision.  Its decision was based on the adverse view it took of the applicant's credibility.  The Tribunal described the applicant's claims and evidence as "irretrievably inconsistent, self-contradictory, opportunistic and irretrievably implausible".  

4. On 13 November 2012, the Federal Magistrates Court (Riethmuller FM) dismissed an application for review of the Tribunal's decision with costs.  The grounds of review focussed on alleged jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal.  Riethmuller FM found that these grounds were not established.

5. On 15 February 2013, the Federal Court of Australia (Siopis J) dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of Riethmuller FM.  The applicant did not challenge the credibility findings made by the Tribunal.  Siopis J held that it was open to the Tribunal to place no weight on the applicant's assertions for the reasons given by the Tribunal.

6. The applicant seeks leave to appeal to this Court using the same grounds advanced below.  The applicant does not make out any basis for doubting the correctness of the decisions below.  No question of law has been raised that would justify a grant of special leave.  An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospects of success. 

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

S.M. Kiefel
5 June 2013 P.A. Keane