SZOJV and Anor v Minister For Immigration And Citizenship and Anor

[2012] HCASL 115

SZOJV & ANOR

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2012] HCASL 115

S130/2012

1. The applicants are husband and wife and are citizens of India.  They arrived in Australia on 13 June 2009 and applied to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for Protection (Class XA) visas on 9 September 2009.  The first applicant made specific claims under the Refugee Convention in connection with his application, and his wife and child were included in the application as family members.

2. On 2 December 2009, a delegate of the first respondent refused to grant the applicants and their child visas.  The applicants sought review of the delegate's decision but it was affirmed on 8 April 2010 by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT").  That decision was set aside by the Federal Magistrates Court (Barnes FM) on 24 February 2011.  Barnes FM ordered that the RRT determine the matter according to law.

3. Subsequently, a differently constituted RRT found that the first applicant feared persecution by reason of his being a follower of the Dera Sacha Sauda ("the DSS"), a religion the followers of which, in the RRT's view, constituted a particular social group.  The RRT was satisfied that the applicant feared persecution if he were to return to his place of origin.  However, on the basis of country information before it, the RRT found that conflict involving DSS followers had been confined to particular areas of India, and that there was no evidence to indicate that followers of the DSS were prevented from practising their beliefs, or partaking in relevant activities, in other parts of that country.  The RRT also took into account the first applicant's personal circumstances:  he was literate, had operated a business in India in the past, and had successfully supported his family in Australia.  Accordingly, the RRT concluded that it would be reasonable for the first applicant to relocate to a different part of India where there would be no real chance of him being persecuted on account of his adherence to the DSS.

4. The Federal Magistrates Court (Nicholls FM) dismissed an application for judicial review of the decision of the RRT.  The applicants now seek special leave to appeal from orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Siopis J) dismissing the applicants' appeal against the orders of Nicholls FM.

5. As the applicants do not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

6. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions below and accordingly there are insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal.

7. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal orders dismissing the application.

8          K.M. Hayne

9          15 August 2012

10                   S.M. Crennan