SZQGR & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2012] HCASL 94

SZQGR & ANOR

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2012] HCASL 94
S70/2012

1. The applicants, who are husband and wife, are citizens of India.  They arrived in Australia in July 2010.  In September 2010 they applied for protection visas.  The first applicant claimed to fear persecution in India because of his activity on behalf of the Congress Party.  His wife's application was as a member of his family unit.  The applications were refused by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

2. The applicants sought a review of the delegate's decision in the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  The first applicant gave evidence before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal did not accept him as a witness of truth.  It observed that he did not have knowledge of a number of basic facts concerning the Congress Party.  These included that the applicant did not know the name of the Prime Minister.  Nor did he know that the Congress Party was in control at the national level in India.  However the Tribunal did not draw its adverse conclusion as to the first applicant's credibility based on his lack of knowledge of the Congress Party alone.  It identified a number of inconsistencies in his evidence and features of his account that it considered implausible.  It did not accept any of his claims.  It affirmed the delegate's decisions. 

3. An application for judicial review of the Tribunal's determination was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates Court (Cameron FM).

4. An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Bromberg J) was dismissed.

5. The applicants seek special leave to appeal from the orders of the Federal Court.  The proposed grounds of appeal in the application differ from those in the draft Notice of Appeal.  No ground is suitable for the grant of special leave.  Nothing in the applicants' written case calls into question the correctness of the decision below.  If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have no prospects of success.

6. The applications are dismissed.

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

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