SZQAS & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 90

SZQAS & ANOR

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2012] HCASL 90
S34/2012

1. The applicants are citizens of Bangladesh. 

2. The first applicant is the wife of the second applicant.  The second applicant makes no separate claim for a protection visa:  his claim is dependent on that of his wife.

3. The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent's decision not to grant the applicants' application for protection visas.  The Tribunal accepted that the first applicant had suffered a repressive upbringing in a strict Muslim household.  But it did not accept that this amounted to serious harm.  On credibility-based grounds, the Tribunal did not accept the more extreme parts of what the first applicant said.  It did not accept her claim that her family would force her to divorce her husband.  It found that the application was driven by the second applicant, not the first.  The Tribunal did not accept that the first applicant was beaten or tortured by her parents or her brother.  It did not accept that she married the second applicant without the approval of either family.  It did not accept that she reported her claims to the police anywhere in Bangladesh.  It did not accept that she had no family support.  It did not accept that she suffered severe physical and psychological abuse from fanatical males of her husband's and her own family because of the way she lives her life.  It did not accept that the applicants would be searched for or killed by their families or anyone acting on their behalf if they were returned to Bangladesh.  It did not accept that the first applicant's family have pressured her or will pressure her to divorce the second applicant and marry a Mullah.  It did not accept that the first applicant's in-laws arranged for an Islamic Imam to visit the applicants to lecture them about the Quran and Sunna.  It did not accept that to escape ostracism the first applicant settled overseas.  It did not accept that she would face ostracism on her return to Bangladesh.  And the Tribunal did not accept that the first applicant's rejection of Muslim beliefs and Sharia law would cause her to face persecution on her return to Bangladesh.

4. The Federal Magistrates Court (Driver FM) dismissed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal decision.

5. The Federal Court of Australia (Perram J) dismissed an appeal from this decision.  Like Driver FM, Perram J rejected a submission that the Tribunal had failed to consider any separate claim by the second applicant.  Perram J noted that the second applicant had disavowed any desire to make a separate claim.

6. The applicants require an extension of time within which to file the papers they have filed in support of their application for special leave to appeal to this Court:  it is claimed that the Federal Court decision was sent to the wrong address.  However that may be, it would be futile to extend time.  There are no prospects of success in any appeal.  The applicants repeat the baseless argument that the second applicant's claims were not considered.  In substance, the applicants merely seek to re-agitate the Tribunal's factual reasoning.

7. The application is dismissed.

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

J.D. Heydon
20 June 2012 V.M. Bell