BRGAD of 2009 & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2011] HCASL 1

BRGAD OF 2009 & ANOR
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2011] HCASL 1
B64/2010

1. The applicants are married.  They claim to be citizens of India.  The Refugee Review Tribunal upheld a decision of a delegate of the first respondent refusing them protection visas.  The ground on which the husband claimed a protection visa was that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in that should he return to India six wealthy villagers to whom he owed money would harm him.  The Tribunal was prepared to assume that the lenders had sought to beat the applicants in the past and would wish to inflict harm on them should they return.  The Tribunal, however, contended that the fear of harm, since it arose out of an apprehension of criminal physical conduct relating to the non-payment of debts, did not constitute a reason for persecution within the meaning of the Refugee Convention.  The husband feared persecution as an individual, not as a member of a relevant social group.

2. An application to the Federal Magistrates Court (Burnett FM) for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision failed.  The Court was not satisfied that there had been any jurisdictional error.

3. An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Greenwood J) was dismissed.

4. The draft Notice of Appeal filed in support of the applicants' application for special leave to appeal to this Court states only one ground of appeal:

   "The Tribunal made Jurisdictional error as it made a credibility finding against the applicant unreasonably without proper evidentiary basis and based on speculation."

   The papers filed contain no argument amplifying or supporting that ground.  They do contain contentions – some very general, some very extreme – that appear to be directed to some case other than that pursued by the applicants before the delegate, the Tribunal and the courts below.  There are no contentions directed to showing error in Greenwood J's reasoning.  To grant special leave would be futile.

5. The application is dismissed.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.D. Heydon
9 February 2011 V.M. Bell