SZSHK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2014] HCASL 116

SZSHK

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR

[2014] HCASL 116
S293/2013

1. The applicant, a citizen of Afghanistan, arrived in Australia on 6 December 2011.  He requested a Protection Obligations Determination ("POD") on 12 March 2012.  On 22 May 2012, a delegate of the first respondent found that Australia did not owe protection obligations to the applicant and the POD was referred to the second respondent, an Independent Protection Assessor.

2. On 8 August 2012, the second respondent recommended to the first respondent that Australia did not owe the applicant protection obligations under either s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The second respondent did not find the applicant's claims to be truthful or credible.

3. On 26 June 2013, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Nicholls J) dismissed the applicant's application for review of the second respondent's recommendation.  The grounds raised by the application related to the second respondent's consideration of the applicant's claims to complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa).  Nicholls J held that none of the grounds had been made out.

4. On 13 November 2013, a Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Robertson, Griffiths and Perry JJ) dismissed the applicant's appeal from the decision of Nicholls J.  The Full Court held that the second respondent had specifically addressed the applicant's claims by reference to s 36(2)(aa).  The Full Court also held that the second respondent had not erred in failing to address, under s 36(2)(aa), a claim regarding a threat to the applicant's livelihood, as this claim had not been made expressly and did not clearly arise in relation to the complementary protection obligations.

5. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.  There is no reason to doubt the decision of the Full Court.  The second respondent addressed the applicant's claims in accordance with s 36(2)(aa).  No question of principle falls for determination in this application. Special leave is refused.

6. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

S.M. Kiefel
19 June 2014 P.A. Keane