SZOQA & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2011] HCASL 196
SZOQA & ANOR
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2011] HCASL 196
S277/2011
The applicants are husband and wife and are citizens of India who arrived in Australia on 23 December 2009. On 19 January 2010, the husband, the principal applicant ("the applicant"), applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa. On 19 April 2010, a delegate of the first respondent refused the application.
On 24 August 2010, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the delegate's decision. The applicant claimed to fear persecution on grounds of his political opinion, religion and membership of a particular social group. The Tribunal formed an adverse view of the applicant's credibility, noting a variety of inconsistencies and omissions in his evidence, which the applicant could not satisfactorily explain.
On 23 March 2011, the Federal Magistrates Court (Barnes FM) dismissed the applicants' application for review of the Tribunal's decision. The only ground advanced by the applicants was that the Tribunal breached s 425(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") relating to the requirement that an applicant be invited to appear before the Tribunal. The complaint was found to be without substance. Her Honour found the Tribunal complied with its obligations under s 425 of the Act in the conduct of its hearing and that no other jurisdictional error was established by the applicants.
On 2 August 2011, the Federal Court (Siopis J) dismissed the applicants' appeal pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 36.75 of the Federal Court Rules by reason of the non-appearance of the applicants. Nonetheless, his Honour considered the merits of the appeal. His Honour held that the ground which had been argued in the Federal Magistrates Court was without substance for the reasons given by Barnes FM. Other grounds of review raised by the applicants had not been raised below and his Honour held that the interests of justice did not require the grant of leave to raise the new grounds.
The application to this Court does not advance any questions of law that would justify the grant of special leave to appeal. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision below.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the applications.
W.M.C. Gummow S.M. Kiefel 1 December 2011
0
0