SZMBG v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal, fixed at $800. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant applies for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing the applicant's application pursuant to rule 44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth). The Federal Magistrate held that the applicant's application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal had no reasonable prospects of success. The applicant had failed in his application before the Tribunal for a protection visa. 2 The applicant is a citizen of India. He claimed that he was denied civil and political freedom in India and suffered from poverty and starvation as a farmer from Rajasthan. He also claimed to be a member of the Mali caste and to have been beaten by members of the Jat caste. He claimed to fear being killed by the Jats if returned to India. He said that if he went to Jaipur, the capital of Rajasthan, the Jats would follow him there. 3 The Tribunal did not believe the applicant's evidence about his beating and other problems with Jats. Even if that evidence was accepted, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was Convention related and rather considered that any feared persecution would have arisen from a personal dispute. The Tribunal also considered that farmers from Rajasthan were not treated differently from other members of Indian society on account of membership of that social group. 4 The Tribunal relied on country information about democratic rights in India to find that there was no real chance that the applicant would be precluded from exercising civil and political rights in a way that would amount to serious harm. 5 The Court below found no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision and observed that the applicant's contentions were unexplained and did not raise any meaningful or arguable grounds. 6 The draft notice of appeal fails to identify any error of law in reasons of the Court below. None was advanced orally this morning. That judgment is not attended with any doubt. No injustice would result from the refusal of leave to appeal. Leave to appeal is refused, with costs. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Marshall.