Applicants A169-2003 v MIMIA & Ors

[2006] HCATrans 356

[2006] HCATrans 356

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Adelaide  No A9 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANTS A169/2003

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

IAN LINCOLN MEMBER REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Third Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 2 AUGUST 2006, AT 9.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

HAYNE J:   The applicants are husband, wife and children, and are citizens of Sri Lanka.  They seek special leave to appeal against orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.

The applicants arrived in Australia in 1995 as visitors, and in 2001 made applications for protection visas, which were refused by a delegate of the Minister.  An earlier refusal to grant protection visas was not the subject of any application for judicial review.  The applicants applied for review of the later refusal.  The Refugee Review Tribunal determined that while the husband applicant feared persecution from the LTTE and from Sir Lankan authorities, it was not a well‑founded fear having the requisite objective basis, such as to bring the applicants within the terms of the protection visa regime.  The applicants unsuccessfully sought judicial review of this decision by the Federal Court of Australia (Lander J) and then unsuccessfully appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court (Finn, Marshall and Mansfield JJ) against the orders of Lander J.  The applicants contended that the Refugee Review Tribunal failed to take into account that if the peace process in Sri Lanka broke down between the LTTE and the Sri Lankan government there would be an increased likelihood of hostilities and greater risk posed to the applicants.  In a unanimous decision, the Full Court of the Federal Court determined that the Tribunal had addressed the relevant considerations, and examined each of the elements of the applicants’ claim.

In the proceedings below, the applicants were represented. However, in this application for special leave to appeal, the applicants are unrepresented, and therefore the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The decision of the Full Court is not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of special leave.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 9.35 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED