SZLJR and Anor v Minister For Immigration And Citizenship and Anor

[2008] HCASL 490

SZLJR & ANOR
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2008] HCASL 490
S218/2008

The applicants for special leave to appeal are husband and wife and citizens of India.  They applied for protection visas on the basis of the claim of the applicant husband ("the husband") to fear persecution because of his political opinion.  The husband claimed to have been a member of the Congress Party in India and to have been harassed and attacked by other political parties for that reason.

On 4 September 2007, the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of the respondent Minister to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas.  The applicants were invited to give oral evidence before the Tribunal on 2 July 2007.  However, two days before then, the husband requested an adjournment on account of illness.  The Tribunal rescheduled the hearing for 24 July 2007 and informed the applicants of that rescheduled date by letter dated 3 July 2007.

The applicants did not attend the rescheduled hearing. Pursuant to s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), the Tribunal proceeded to make its decision in their absence. The Tribunal was unable to be satisfied, on the information before it, that the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. In the Tribunal’s view, the husband’s claims were lacking in detail and amounted to a series of bare assertions. No specific claims were advanced by the applicant wife.

The application for an order to show cause why a remedy should not be granted under s 476 of the Act was dismissed by Smith FM on 1 February 2008. His Honour held that there was no substance to the application, which was supported by written submissions that related to a different decision of the Tribunal concerning a different matter.

On appeal to the Federal Court, Tamberlin J was unable to discern any error in the Federal Magistrate’s decision.  His Honour rejected the unsupported allegation of bias and held that the claim of denial of natural justice could not be made out in the circumstances.  An order to dismiss the appeal was made by his Honour on 7 May 2008.

The application for special leave to appeal does not advance any question of law that would justify the intervention of this Court.  There are no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court.  Special leave is refused.

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

W.M.C. Gummow
28 August 2008 S.M. Kiefel