SZCBH & Anor v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 907

[2005] HCATrans 907

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S269 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZCBH

First Applicant

SZCBI

Second Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2005, AT 9.44 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicants are husband and wife and are citizens of India who arrived in Australia in January 2003.  The first applicant (“the applicant”) claims that, after having had difficulty repaying a loan to certain money-lenders, he was subjected to threats and to violence by political and criminal associates of the money-lenders.  This appears to have been directed towards a claim that the applicant is entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of political persecution.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s claims generally lacked detail and expressed some doubts about their credibility.  However, the Tribunal found that the claim was “without a Convention nexus” as the only Convention ground the applicant had invoked, that of persecution for reasons of political opinion, depended upon the contention that the money-lenders had affiliations with the ruling political party of India and there was no evidence to support this.  The Tribunal was therefore unable to be satisfied on the material before it that the applicant had a well‑founded fear of persecution should he return to India.

The applicants sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court.  That Court dismissed the application as demonstrating no basis for judicial review.  An application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Conti J.  The applicants seek special leave to appeal from the decision of Conti J.

The applicants’ application for special leave to appeal and their written case are pro forma documents which raise no grounds for the grant of special leave.  We have considered the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court and are unable to discern any jurisdictional error.  There would be no prospect of success in any appeal to this Court from the Federal Court.  Accordingly, special leave is refused.

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

AT 9.46 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED