SZREB & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2013] HCASL 52

SZREB & ORS

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 52
S350/2012

1. The first and second applicants, a husband and wife, are citizens of India, and their child is the third applicant.  The adult applicants arrived in Australia on 29 November 2008.  Their child was born in Australia on 16 November 2010.  The applicants applied to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for Protection (Class XA) visas on 23 May 2011. Only the applicant wife made specific claims under the Refugees Convention and Protocol ("the Convention") in connection with the application.  She claimed that she was a Hindu, and that if she were to return to India, her family would be in danger of religious violence.  The applicant husband and child were included in the applicant wife's application as family members.

2. On 22 July 2011, a delegate of the first respondent refused to grant the applicants visas.  The applicants sought review of the delegate's decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT").  Before the RRT, the applicant husband made submissions which led the RRT to consider his visa application on the basis of a separate claim for protection under the Convention.  He claimed to have been kidnapped by Muslims because of, among other things, his involvement with a Hindu organisation, and that if he were to return to India he would be targeted once again and for the same reasons.

3. The RRT found that the applicant wife's fears were not well-founded as they were based largely on mere speculation.  The RRT accepted that the applicant husband had been kidnapped, but found that he had not been targeted for Convention reasons.  Further, the RRT considered that if the applicants require protection from the persons whom they fear, they will have access to a reasonable level of State protection in India.  The RRT affirmed the delegate's decision on 17 January 2012.  The Federal Magistrates Court (Emmett FM) dismissed an application for judicial review of the decision of the RRT.  The applicants now seek special leave to appeal from orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Rares J) dismissing the applicants' appeal against the orders of Emmett FM.

4. As the applicants do not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

5. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions below and accordingly there are insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal orders dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
10 April 2013 S.M. Crennan