SZAHQ & Ors v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 501

[2005] HCATrans 501

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S292 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

SZAHQ

First Applicant

SZAHR

Second Applicant

SZAHS

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

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 5 AUGUST 2005, AT 8.47 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

McHUGH J:   This is an application to appeal from the decision of Hely J, given on 26 July 2004, dismissing an appeal from the decision of Driver FM of 26 November 2003, refusing to grant an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, which upheld the decision of the Minister’s delegate not to grant a protection visa to the applicant.

The applicants are all members of the one family.  They are husband, wife and son.  They are all Jehovah’s Witnesses and claim to fear persecution on the basis of their religion if they return to their country of citizenship, the Russian Federation. 

The Tribunal found that the applicant wife was not a credible witness, and that she had exaggerated and fabricated her claims in order to enhance her refugee status.  It further found that Jehovah’s Witnesses had not suffered persecution in Russia since the establishment of the Russian Federation.  Hely J correctly held that these findings were open to the Tribunal, with the result that the applicants were not held to be refugees.  His Honour also rejected the applicants’ assertions that the Tribunal had fallen into jurisdictional error and distinguished the case from Labara v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCAFC 145 on the basis that, while it could be accepted that the applicants had suffered persecution in the past, the evidence showed that they had not suffered such persecution for several years, and would not suffer persecution if they returned to Russia. The applicants’ submissions in this application do not raise any new question of law. Essentially, they seek to re-argue questions of fact. That is not a basis for a grant of special leave to appeal to this Court. As this application raises no arguable question of law, it must be dismissed.

The application for special leave is dismissed with costs.

Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application is dismissed with costs.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 8.47 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED