HZAAB & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 55

HZAAB & ANOR
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2012] HCASL 55
H2/2012

1. The applicants are citizens of India who arrived in Australia on 8 July 2008.  On 4 June 2010, they applied for Protection (Class XA) visas.  On 30 November 2010, a delegate of the first respondent refused the applications.  

2. On 4 March 2011, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the delegate's decision.  The male applicant claimed to have been subject to violence and threats of violence by members of the Khalistan Movement ("the movement"), a separatist Sikh organisation, due to his refusal to join the movement.  The female applicant claimed protection as a member of the male applicant's family.  Whilst the Tribunal accepted that the male applicant's family home had been attacked, it doubted his claim as to the motivation for the attack.  Further, evidence suggested that the movement had little influence.  This cast doubt on the male applicant's claims that it was an ongoing threat to him and that the State was unwilling or unable to protect him from any threat.  The Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied that, if he were returned to India, the male applicant would face a real chance of serious harm capable of amounting to persecution. 

3. On 11 August 2011, the Federal Magistrates Court (Whelan FM) dismissed the applicants' application for review of the Tribunal's decision.  Whelan FM held, contrary to the applicants' contention, that the Tribunal gave consideration to the material before it and that there was no discernable jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's approach.

4. On 16 December 2011, the Federal Court of Australia (Marshall J) dismissed the applicants' appeal.  His Honour rejected the claim that the Tribunal had failed to take into account the evidence relied upon by the applicants.  No appealable error in Whelan FM's judgment or jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision was identified. 

5. The application to this Court does not advance any question of law that would justify the grant of special leave to appeal.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions below.

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

W.M.C. Gummow	S.M. Kiefel
29 March 2012