MZYUM & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Anor

MZYUM & ANOR

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 105
M20/2013

The first and second applicants, a husband and wife, are citizens of Sri Lanka. They seek special leave to appeal against orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Dodds-Streeton J) dismissing the applicants' appeal against orders of the Federal Magistrates Court. The Federal Magistrate (O'Dwyer FM) dismissed an application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal to affirm the decision by a delegate of the first respondent to refuse to grant the applicants Protection (Class XA) visas.
The application is brought out of time and the applicants seek an order dispensing with the requirement to comply with the time limit in r 41.02.1 of the High Court Rules 2004.
As the applicants do not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10.
There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision below. An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospect of success.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
26 June 2013

S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of MZYUM & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor, the applicants, a married couple from Sri Lanka, are seeking special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The applicants' appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court judge, which upheld the Federal Magistrates Court's decision to reject the applicants' application for judicial review. The Federal Magistrates Court had dismissed the applicants' application to review the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, which had affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse the applicants' application for Protection (Class XA) visas. The applicants are now seeking an order from the High Court that would allow them to dispense with the requirement to comply with the time limit for filing their application for special leave to appeal.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the applicants' application for special leave to appeal was filed out of time and, if so, whether an order should be made to dispense with the time limit. The applicants, who are not legally represented, must demonstrate that their application is not out of time and that it has a reasonable prospect of success. If the application is deemed to be out of time, the applicants must provide sufficient reason to justify the late filing, and the Court must be satisfied that the application has a reasonable prospect of success.

In dismissing the applicants' application, the High Court found that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the lower courts. The Court held that the applicants' application was indeed filed out of time and that there was no sufficient reason to justify the late filing. Furthermore, the Court was not satisfied that the applicants' appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. As a result, the Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the applicants' application for special leave to appeal, finding that it was filed out of time and that there was no reasonable prospect of success. The Court's decision was made pursuant to the relevant rules of the High Court, and the applicants' application was dismissed without any further orders.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established