Nari & Ors v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 817

[2005] HCATrans 817

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S308 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

NARI

First Applicant

NARJ

Second Applicant

NARK

Third Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2005, AT 9.25 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

HAYNE J:   The applicants, who are Russian citizens, are husband and wife and have one child.  The entitlement of the female applicant to a protection visa depends upon the outcome of her husband’s application.  He claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason:  of victimisation by way of threats and intimidation by the Federal Security Service (Russian) if he were compelled to return to that country, by reason of his membership of a particular social group, his family.

The male applicant’s claims were rejected by a delegate of the respondent and the Refugee Review Tribunal. A Federal Magistrate and a judge of the Federal Court, exercising the appellate jurisdiction of that Court pursuant to s 25(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), could discern no jurisdictional or like error on the part of the Tribunal.

Now the applicants seek special leave to appeal to this Court from the decision of the Federal Court.  The applicants’ written arguments do not demonstrate any error on the part of the Federal Court.  It follows that the application to this Court must be dismissed.

Because the applicants are unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with in accordance with rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 9.27 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED