SZCIZ & Anor v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 837

[2005] HCATrans 837

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S316 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZCIZ

First Applicant

SZCJA

Second 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, 7 OCTOBER 2005, AT 9.06 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The Refugee Review Tribunal rejected the claim of the applicants, Indian nationals who are husband and wife, for a protection visa because the Tribunal found that the applicants were not members of the Dalit caste and were not persecuted by upper class Hindus.

The Federal Magistrates Court held that the applicants failed to particularise any of the four grounds of review that were set out in the applicants’ application to the Court for judicial review.  The Court refused to grant the first applicant an adjournment because the applicant had failed to attend properly to his affairs by failing to attend the Tribunal hearing and by failing to take advantage of the opportunity to participate in the legal advice scheme.

The Federal Court dismissed an appeal on the grounds that the notice of appeal did not identify a coherent ground of appeal and the applicants’ written submissions did not raise any proper claim of jurisdictional error.

The applicant’s special leave application complained of errors of law and jurisdictional error.  The applicant also relied on Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966; 190 ALR 601, but did not demonstrate the necessary factual basis. The appeal has no prospects of success.

The application is dismissed.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 9.06 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED