SZRQT & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2013] HCASL 184

SZRQT & ANOR

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 184
S117/2013

1. The applicants, who are husband and wife, are Nepalese nationals.  They arrived in Australia in 2008.  On 14 September 2010 they applied for protection visas.  The substantive claims for protection were those made by the husband. He claimed to have been involved in the leadership of the Maoist Party of Nepal and to fear persecution as a result of his defection from the Party.

2. The first respondent's delegate refused the application.

3. The applicants applied for a review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  Both applicants gave evidence before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal gave the applicants "the benefit of the doubt" accepting their claims in relation to events up until April 2008, when the Nepalese elections brought the Maoist Party to power.  The Tribunal did not accept the credibility of either applicant in relation to events after that date.  In coming to this conclusion it noted a number of inconsistencies in their accounts.  It did not accept the applicants' explanations for the delay in applying for protection visas.  It found that there was no credible evidence that Maoists wished to harm the first applicant or that he is of adverse interest to them.  The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.

4. An application for judicial review was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates' Court of Australia (Driver FM). 

5. An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia was dismissed (Flick J).

6. The applicants seek special leave to appeal.  They contend that the Tribunal's reasons were wanting in rationality and logic.  They do not engage with Flick J's reasons for rejecting their irrationality challenge.  His Honour found that the Tribunal reached its conclusions based upon its adverse credit findings.  Contrary to the applicants' written case, their application does not raise consideration of the issues discussed in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS[1].  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision below.  If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have no prospects of success.

   [1](2010) 240 CLR 611; [2010] HCA 16.

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.

V.M. Bell
3 December 2013 S.J. Gageler