AustLII Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback

High Court of Australia Transcripts

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> High Court of Australia Transcripts >> 2005 >> [2005] HCATrans 488

Database Search | Name Search | Recent Documents | Noteup | LawCite | Download | Help

SZAZX v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 488 (4 August 2005)

--

SZAZX v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 488 (4 August 2005)

Last Updated: 24 August 2005

[2005] HCATrans 488


IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA


Office of the Registry
Sydney No S403 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

SZAZX

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders


GLEESON CJ
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 4 AUGUST 2005, AT 9.34 AM


Copyright in the High Court of Australia


GLEESON CJ: The applicant is a citizen of India. He claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution on the ground that as a Hindu involved with the Haryana Vikas Party he would be harmed by Muslims who are helped by the Lok Dal government in the State of Haryana.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant was a supporter of the Haryana Vikas Party, but was not satisfied that he had a significant profile within it. The Tribunal also found that while the applicant may have been charged by police following a fight in 2001, this did not amount to persecution for a Convention reason. Moreover, given the applicant’s ability to communicate both in Hindi and in English, the Tribunal found that he could avoid the personal animosities he had incurred in his local area by relocating elsewhere within India.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. The applicant submitted, among other things, that the Tribunal had failed to take into account a relevant factor, this being the circumstance that he had sustained a serious workplace injury in Australia and had outstanding a compensation claim. The Court found that the only issue which had been raised in the Tribunal respecting the injury had been that the applicant needed more time in Australia. No jurisdictional error was shown. An appeal to the Federal Court (Wilcox J) was dismissed.

We have reviewed the applicant’s written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court. The materials provided by the applicant suggest that he seeks primarily to obtain a review on the merits. There are insufficient prospects of success in any appeal to this Court from the decision of the Federal Court. Accordingly, special leave to appeal is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application for special leave.

AT 9.36 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCATrans/2005/488.html