SZDRC & Anor v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 801

[2005] HCATrans 801

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S159 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZDRC

First Applicant

SZDRD

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 THURSDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2005, AT 9.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicants are husband and wife and citizens of India, both being of the Hindu religion.  They arrived in Australia in September 2003 and claim to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well‑founded fear of persecution on the grounds that they lived in a Muslim-dominated neighbourhood in the State of Gujarat and that, because of the applicant husband’s involvement with the BJP in Gujarat, they had been subjected to continuing attacks by Muslim extremists.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas.  The applicants did not provide oral evidence before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal rejected the applicants’ claim that police in Gujarat and elsewhere in India are unwilling and unable to afford protection to Hindus threatened by Muslim extremism.  The Tribunal also adverted to the possibility that the applicants may relocate within India to a non-Muslim-dominated neighbourhood.

The applicants sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court.  The Court noted that the Tribunal’s decision was expressed tersely, but dismissed the applicants’ application for review on the basis that they had failed to show any jurisdictional error in that decision.  An appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Wilcox J who said he found no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal.

We have reviewed the applicants’ written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court.  There is nothing in these materials to suggest that the decision of the Tribunal was attended by jurisdictional error or that the Federal Court erred.  Accordingly, special leave to appeal is refused. 

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

AT 9.35 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED