NAZO & Ors v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 487

[2005] HCATrans 487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S123 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

NAZO

First Applicant

NAZP

Second Applicant

NAZQ

Third Applicant

NAZR

Fourth Applicant

NAZS

Fifth Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GLEESON CJ
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 4 AUGUST 2005, AT 9.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

GLEESON CJ:   The applicants are husband and wife and two children.  They are citizens of India.  They claim to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well‑founded fear of persecution by reason of the circumstance that the applicant husband is a Muslim and was formerly an active member of the Mumbai Muslim Student Federation (“the MMSF”).

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas.   The Tribunal accepted the applicant husband’s claim that he was the victim of extortion in Mumbai, but rejected his contention that he was thus victimised because of his religion and his activities in the MMSF.

The applicants sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Court.  The applicant husband submitted, among other things, that not all relevant considerations had been taken into account and that the Tribunal had so misunderstood its task as inappropriately to approach the assessment of factual material before it.  The Court (Allsop J) gave detailed reasons for dismissal of the application on the basis that no jurisdictional error by the Tribunal had been shown.  An appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court (Wilcox, Branson and Bennett JJ) was dismissed.

We have reviewed the applicants’ written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, Allsop J and the Full Court of the Federal Court.  The materials provided by the applicants suggest that they seek primarily to reopen the findings of fact by the Tribunal.  There are insufficient prospects of success in any appeal to this Court from the decision of the Federal Court.  Accordingly, special leave to appeal is refused. 

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application for special leave.

AT 9.34 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED