MZYMI & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 86

MZYMI & ORS

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2012] HCASL 86
M14/2012

1. The first, second and third applicants are citizens of India.  The third applicant is a son of the first two applicants.  The fourth applicant, who is also a son of the first and second applicants, was born on 22 September 2010, after his parents arrived in Australia.

2. The first applicant claimed to fear persecution because his relatives wanted revenge against him in relation to a financial dispute.  He claimed that they had bribed the police to threaten and harass him and his father.  The claims of the second and third applicants were dependent on that claim.  A delegate of the first respondent found that the persecution which the first applicant claimed to fear was not Convention-related persecution.  At that stage, the fourth applicant had not yet been born.

3. The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") upheld the delegate's decision.  The first applicant expressly stated in the Tribunal, on behalf of himself and the second and third applicants, that they did not fear persecution in India by reason of their race, religion, nationality or political beliefs. 

4. The Tribunal found that the first applicant's relatives had lodged complaints with the police about the first applicant, that the police had been bribed by the relatives, and that as a result the first applicant faced a real chance of being arbitrarily detained. There was also a risk of physical harm at the hands of local criminal groups. In addition, the Tribunal found that there was a real chance that the first applicant would be denied protection from those groups by the police. The Tribunal accepted that the applicants would compose a particular social group – their family. But the persecution they feared as a group was not Convention-related persecution. Accordingly, the Tribunal disregarded it pursuant to s 91S of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal also found that it was reasonably practicable for the family to relocate to another part of India where they would not suffer harm. The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction in relation to the fourth applicant.

5. The Federal Magistrates Court (Turner FM) dismissed an application for judicial review.  The grounds advanced were obscure.  Turner FM found no jurisdictional error.  In particular, Turner FM rejected an allegation of bias.

6. The Federal Court of Australia (Bromberg J) dismissed an appeal.  Bromberg J found that the very broad grounds of appeal failed to identify any appellable error.

7. The papers filed in support of the applicants' application for special leave to appeal to this Court identify no ground on which an appeal might succeed if special leave were granted.  Most of the applicants' complaints are entirely general.  Those that are specific are unconnected with the precise circumstances of this case.

8. The application is dismissed.

9. 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