SZRUY & Anor v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship

[2013] HCASL 206

SZRUY & ANOR

v

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 206
S166/2013

1. The applicants are a married couple and citizens of India who arrived in Australia on 21 April 2008.  Prior to travelling to Australia, the first applicant had been granted a Sub-class 573 Higher Education Sector visa.  On 12 May 2011, the applicants lodged applications for Protection (Class XA) visas.  A delegate of the first respondent refused their applications on 17 November 2011.

2. The applicants applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for review of the delegate's decision.  The first applicant claimed to have a well‑founded fear of persecution for Convention reasons if returned to India by virtue of his membership of the All India Sikh Students Federation and because he is a supporter of the Khalistan movement.  The second applicant completed her application as a member of the first applicant's family unit without advancing any claims of her own.  On the basis of country information, the Tribunal concluded that the first applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to India and affirmed the delegate's decision.

3. The applicants unsuccessfully appealed to the Federal Circuit Court (Judge Emmett) for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision. Her Honour dismissed the applicants' claim that the Tribunal failed to comply with s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and that it failed to consider all relevant integers of the applicants' claim. Her Honour also concluded that, given the Tribunal's rejection of the first applicant's claim, it was under no obligation to consider the issue of relocation.

4. The applicants then appealed to the Federal Court (Farrell J) on the grounds that they had been denied procedural fairness and that Emmett J had failed to consider "legal and factual errors" which were said to have been made by the Tribunal.  Farrell J held that the decision of Emmett J was correct and dismissed the appeal.

5. The applicants' draft notice of appeal and written case are of a template variety.  They do not identify any errors in the decision of the Federal Court.  The applicants have no prospects of success in this Court.  Special leave should be refused.

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

S.M. Kiefel
13 December 2013 P.A. Keane