SZHOK v MIAC & Anor [2008] HCATrans 20 (6 February 2008)

Last Updated: 12 February 2008

[2008] HCATrans 020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S263 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZHOK

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 WEDNESDAY, 6 FEBRUARY 2008, AT 9.32 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant, a citizen of India, arrived in Australia on 13 March 2005. On 9 May 2005 a delegate of the first respondent refused his application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have been forced to move to Ahmedabad for fear of persecution from Hindu extremists because he had sheltered Muslims in his factory after the 2002 inter-communal riots in Gujarat. The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") did not accept that the applicant had continued to live in Ahmedabad or that Hindu groups would target him. It concluded that the applicant did not face a real chance of persecution from Hindu extremists.

On 21 December 2006 Riethmuller FM dismissed the application for review of the Tribunal's decision. His Honour found that there was no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision on any of the grounds put forward by the applicant.

Tracey J refused the application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court on 8 May 2007. His Honour found that the grounds, none of which had been raised in the court below, lacked substance.

The applicant's written submissions do not advance any question of law that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal. The applicant submits that the Tribunal breached s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). His case does not identify information to which this section applies. It does not otherwise identify any error in the judgement appealed from. No jurisdictional error is disclosed. No question of principle arises from the decision of the Federal Court. Further, any appeal to this Court would be incompetent: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 33(2).

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 9.34 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED