SZPZQ & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 29

SZPZQ & ORS
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR
[2012] HCASL 29
S374/2011

1. The applicants are a husband, his wife and their two children.  They are citizens of India.  They applied for protection visas on the ground that the husband feared persecution on grounds of political opinion after his departure from the Indian National Congress Party.

2. The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal) upheld a decision of a delegate of the first respondent refusing a protection visa.  It found that the evidence of the husband and the wife lacked credibility because of internal inconsistencies.  Hence it was not satisfied that the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason.

3. The Federal Magistrates Court (Smith FM) refused an application for judicial review. Smith FM found that the Tribunal had not fallen into any jurisdictional error. In particular, the conduct of the hearing by video link rather than face to face did not contravene s 425(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

4. The applicants appealed to the Federal Court of Australia (Foster J).  Foster J dismissed the appeal.

5. The applicants have applied for special leave to appeal to this Court.  The two grounds in the applicants' draft Notice of Appeal are:

   "1.The Judge of the Federal Court in his honourable judgment … failed to find error of law and relief under Section 39B of the judiciary Act.  The Court failed to find that the Refugee Review Tribunal has not found any evidence in relation to my claims and thus its decision influenced by sufficient doubts.

   2.The Federal Court in finding that the Tribunal had accorded procedural fairness to the appellant affirming the decision of the Delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship."

   The applicants' Written Case does not demonstrate that either of those grounds has any possibility of success were special leave to be granted.  It has a pro forma character, concentrating on matters irrelevant to the circumstances of this case.

6. The application is dismissed.

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

   J.D. Heydon  V.M. Bell
   29 February 2012