MZYMG & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 85

MZYMG & ANOR

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2012] HCASL 85
M13/2012

1. The first applicant is the father of the first applicant in MZYMI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.  He is the father-in-law of the second applicant and grandfather of the third and fourth applicants in those related proceedings.  The second applicant in these proceedings is the wife of the first applicant.  Her claims are dependent on his. 

2. His claims rest on fear of persecution arising out of the financial dispute described in MZYMI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.  In that case, as in this case, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") upheld the decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas.   In that case, as in this case, the Tribunal agreed with the primary factual allegations advanced by the applicants, and found that the applicants feared harm from relatives who had bribed the police to harass them, and from local criminal groups.  In that case, as in this, the Tribunal found that the persecution which the applicants feared was not Convention-related persecution.  In that case, as in this, the Tribunal found that the persecution which was feared could reasonably be avoided by relocation within India.  In this case, however, the Tribunal also found that "Indian males who owe money to family" does not constitute a particular social group within the Convention's meaning. 

3. The Federal Magistrates Court (Turner FM) dismissed an application for judicial review.  Turner FM found that there was no jurisdictional error.  In particular, Turner FM rejected an allegation of bias.

4. The Federal Court of Australia (Bromberg J) dismissed an appeal.  Bromberg J found no appellable error. 

5. The papers filed in the application for special leave to appeal to this Court are identical to those filed in MZYMI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.  The proposed grounds of appeal are either excessively general or unrelated to the circumstances of these proceedings.  An appeal would have no prospects of success. 

6. The application is dismissed. 

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

J.D. Heydon
20 June 2012 V.M. Bell