SZAUF & Ors v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 805

[2005] HCATrans 805

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S165 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZAUF

First Applicant

SZAUG

Second Applicant

SZAUH

Third Applicant

SZAUI

Fourth Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2005, AT 9.41 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

GUMMOW J:   The applicants are husband and wife and their two children.  They are citizens of Sri Lanka.  The applicant husband claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution on the ground that he is a Tamil who had, through his brother, some association with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (“the LTTE”).  The applicant wife, who is not a Tamil but Singhalese, claims that she has suffered persecution because she is married to a Tamil who has attracted the interest of security forces in Sri Lanka.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas. 

The applicants sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court, arguing that the Tribunal had committed a jurisdictional error in failing to consider one of the applicant husband’s key factual claims.  This is that, after he fled Sri Lanka, the police attended his home, questioning the family living there about his whereabouts and harassing them.  The applicant husband claims further that every time there has been an incident in the area the occupants of that house have been subjected to questioning.  Upon a close reading of the Tribunal’s reasons, the Court concluded that the Tribunal did accept that these visits had occurred but decided that, because of the then ongoing peace negotiations between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE, the applicants would not face serious harm if they returned to Sri Lanka.  On this basis, the Court held that no jurisdictional error had been shown by the applicants.  An appeal to the Federal Court (Lindgren J) was dismissed.  His Honour held that the Tribunal had dealt adequately with the applicants’ claims.

We have reviewed the applicants’ written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court.  There are insufficient prospects of success in any appeal to this Court from the decision of Lindgren J.  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.  I publish the disposition signed by Kirby J and myself.

AT 9.43 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED