MZZTG & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

[2014] HCASL 210

MZZTG & ORS

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR

[2014] HCASL 210
M84/2014

1. The first applicant was born in 2011 and is the son of the second and third applicants.           The second and third applicants made a joint application for protection visas in 2009.  This application was refused by a delegate of the first respondent, and that decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  Judicial review of the Tribunal's decision was unsuccessful.

2. The first applicant lodged an application for a Protection (Class XA) visa shortly after his birth. The second and third applicants purported to be included in the application as members of the family unit of the first applicant. A delegate of the first respondent refused to grant the first applicant a protection visa and, in reliance on s 48A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), found that the second and third applicants were precluded from applying for protection visas on the basis of their previously refused applications. The delegate's decision was affirmed by the Tribunal. The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia set aside the Tribunal's decision and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Tribunal for reconsideration.

3. The Tribunal, differently constituted, affirmed the decision of the delegate in relation to the first applicant and determined that it had no jurisdiction to determine the applications of the second and third applicants on the basis that the Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to "RRT-reviewable decisions". Pursuant to s 411 of the Act, "RRT-reviewable decisions" do not include applications which have been determined by the delegate to be invalid.

4. The Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Judge Riley) dismissed an application for review of the decision of the Tribunal.       The Federal Court of Australia (Middleton J) held that the Federal Circuit Court correctly found that the Tribunal made no jurisdictional error.

5. The applicants now seek special leave to appeal from the decision of the Federal Court. As the applicants do not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

6. The applicants have not identified any questions of law that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision below and an appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospects of success.  The application is to be dismissed.

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

V.M. Bell
10 December 2014 S.J. Gageler