SZOUL & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2011] HCASL 202
SZOUL & ANOR
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2011] HCASL 202
S316/2011
The applicants, who are husband and wife, are citizens of India and arrived in Australia on 11 October 2009. They applied for Protection (Class XA) visas on 19 November 2009. On 16 July 2010, a delegate of the first respondent refused to grant the applicants protection visas.
On 29 October 2010, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the delegate's decisions. The applicants claimed to fear persecution on the grounds of their Christianity. The first applicant claims to have been attacked by Hindu extremists and Indian authorities, who sought to prevent him from providing evidence that he witnessed the murder of a Hindu extremist. The second applicant claims that she was targeted by Hindu extremists who were seeking to harm her husband. Whilst the Tribunal accepted that the applicants were Christians, it did not accept their claim that they had been targeted by Hindu extremists or the authorities in India. The applicants' evidence was found to be inconsistent in a number of ways. The Tribunal found that the applicants fabricated their claims of being targeted by Hindu extremists and that their claimed fears of religious persecution were inconsistent with information from external sources considered by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants did not face a real chance of serious harm in India for reasons of religion.
On 18 April 2011, the Federal Magistrates Court (Barnes FM) dismissed the applicants' application for a review of the Tribunal's decision. The ground advanced by the applicants was that the Tribunal had constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction. Barnes FM held that the Tribunal's decision was not affected by any jurisdictional error or actual or apprehended bias.
On 19 August 2011, the Federal Court of Australia (Reeves J) dismissed the applicants' appeal. His Honour found that the grounds advanced by the applicants were fundamentally misconceived, alleged non-reviewable factual errors, or alleged unparticularised legal errors. All the grounds advanced therefore lacked merit.
The application to this Court does not advance any question of law that would justify the grant of special leave to appeal. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions below.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.
W.M.C. Gummow S.M. Kiefel 1 December 2011
0
0