SZQTS & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2013] HCASL 10

SZQTS & ORS

V

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 10
S313/2012

1. The applicants are citizens of India.  The second and third applicants, who are husband and wife, arrived in Australia in May 2008.  They were refused protection visas in November 2008.  The first applicant, their son, was born in Australia in September 2009.  In January 2011 the applicants applied for protection visas.  The first applicant was the primary applicant.  He alleged that he feared persecution in India because of his family's political opinions.  The second and third applicants were included in his application as members of his family unit.

2. On 1 February 2011 the first applicant was advised by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship that the second and third applicants' applications were invalid because they had been refused protection visas and they had not left Australia since that time[1].  On 19 April 2011 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship ("the Minister") refused the first applicant's application for a protection visa. 

   [1]Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 48A(1) provides that a non-citizen who, while in the migration zone, has made an application for a protection visa, where the grant of a visa has been refused, may not make a further application for a protection visa while in the migration zone.

3. The applicants applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for a review of the delegate's decision.  The tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate not to grant the first applicant a protection visa.  It held that it had no jurisdiction with respect to the decision that the second and third applicants' applications were invalid.

4. The applicants applied to the Federal Magistrates Court (Cameron FM) for judicial review of the Tribunal's determination.  Cameron FM dismissed the application.

5. The applicants appealed to the Federal Court of Australia (Edmonds J).  On 21 August 2012 his Honour dismissed the appeal for want of appearance.  On 5 October 2012 his Honour refused an application to discharge that order. 

6. The applicants apply for special leave to appeal.  Their application is misconceived.  The written case contains pro forma submissions that are unconnected to the decision below.  That decision was to refuse to reinstate the appeal in circumstances in which Edmonds J found no arguable ground of challenge to Cameron FM's reasons.  Nothing in the material filed in support of the application casts doubt on that conclusion. 

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 applications.

J.D. Heydon
26 February 2013 V.M. Bell