SZOIG & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2013] HCASL 27

SZOIG & ANOR

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 27
S335/2012

1. The applicants are husband and wife and are both citizens of India.  They arrived in Australia on 4 July 2009.  On 17 August 2009, they applied for Protection (Class XA) visas which were refused by a delegate of the first respondent on 25 November 2009. 

2. On 17 March 2010, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the delegate's decision.  In their applications, only the first applicant made specific protection claims; the second applicant, his wife, relied on being a member of the first applicant's family. The first applicant claimed that he had left India fearing religious persecution because he was a Sikh.  However, at the Tribunal hearing, the first applicant denied having experienced any difficulties in India by reason of his religion.  The first applicant then claimed that, as a result of his support for the Lok Dal Party during federal elections, his political opponents had attempted to attack him and had made threats against his family.  While the Tribunal accepted that the first applicant was politically involved at a very low level, it found that any threats he may have received did not give rise to any real chance of persecution.  In any event, the Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the applicant to relocate within India.

3. On 3 July 2012, the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia (Raphael FM) dismissed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. Raphael FM rejected an unparticularised claim of jurisdictional error and held that, to the extent that the first applicant complained of an adverse credibility finding, the Tribunal had made no such finding.  The Tribunal's approach to the question of relocation was in accordance with law.

4. On 8 November 2012, the Federal Court of Australia (Foster J) dismissed the applicants' appeal from Raphael FM's decision.  Foster J held that the grounds advanced by the applicants were either misconceived or impermissibly went only to the merits of the Tribunal's decision.

5. The application for special leave to appeal does not advance any questions of law that would justify the grant of special leave.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Federal Court.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 of we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S.M. Kiefel
13 March 2013 S.J. Gageler