SZJSE v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship & Anor [2008] HCATrans 104 (29 February 2008)

Last Updated: 4 March 2008

[2008] HCATrans 104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S293 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZJSE

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders
GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 29 FEBRUARY 2008, AT 9.34 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant is a citizen of India. On 8 July 2005 a delegate of the first respondent refused his application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution from Hindu extremists on the basis of his Muslim faith. The Tribunal found the applicant's oral evidence vague and it did not form a favourable impression of his general credibility. The Tribunal found it implausible that the applicant would return to India on numerous occasions to reside at the same address, were he to have in fact feared serious harm. Although the Tribunal accepted that he was a Muslim, it did not accept that he faced persecution on this basis alone; accordingly, the Tribunal found that the applicant was not owed protection obligations and rejected his application.

On 7 March 2007 Scarlett FM dismissed the application for review of the Tribunal's decision. His Honour held that the Tribunal had not breached s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and that the Tribunal's decision turned on a factual assessment of the applicant's credibility. The Tribunal had not fallen into jurisdictional error in coming to its decision.

Downes J dismissed the applicant's appeal to the Federal Court on 17 May 2007. His Honour held that the applicant was effectively seeking merits review of the Tribunal's decision. His Honour found that the Tribunal reached its decision on its factual findings, and that it was not obliged under s 424A to put the reasoning process by which it arrived at those findings to the applicant.

The applicant has not identified any questions of law that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal. There was no jurisdictional error in the decision of the Tribunal, and there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision below.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish the disposition signed by Kiefel J and myself.

AT 9.36 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED