SZSOP & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor

SZSOP & ANOR
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR
[2014] HCASL 217
S227/2014

The applicants, who are husband and wife, are citizens of the Republic of India. They applied to the Department of Immigration for Protection (Class XA) visas on 8 February 2012. The substantive protection claims were made by the husband. The wife's application was as a member of his family unit. On 17 May 2012, a delegate of the first respondent refused the applications.
On 16 January 2013, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the delegate's decision.
An application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision was dismissed by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Judge Raphael) on 9 April 2014[1].
[1]SZSOP v Minister for Immigration [2014] FCCA 771.
An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Nicholas J) was dismissed on 7 August 2014[2].
[2]SZSOP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 844.
The applicants seek special leave to appeal. They do not have legal representation and their application falls to be determined under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
The applicants make unparticularised assertions that Nicholas J "failed to find that the [Tribunal] has not found any evidence in relation to my claims and thus its decision [sic] influenced by sufficient doubts" and of denial of procedural fairness by the Tribunal.
The applicants' written case is formulaic and unrelated to the grounds of appeal or the reasons below. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of Nicholas J's decision. If special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have no prospect of success.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
10 December 2014 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of SZSOP & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor, the applicants, a husband and wife who are citizens of India, sought special leave to appeal against the refusal of their applications for Class XA visas. The substantive protection claims were made by the husband, with the wife's application as a member of his family unit. The applications were initially refused by a delegate of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, a decision which was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicants' application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision was dismissed by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and their subsequent appeal to the Federal Court of Australia was also dismissed. The applicants now seek special leave to appeal to the High Court, proceeding pro se and under the provisions of rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants' claims of procedural unfairness by the Tribunal and errors in the findings of fact by the Federal Court warranted the grant of special leave to appeal. The applicants asserted that the Federal Court failed to consider that the Tribunal had not found evidence in relation to their claims and that the Tribunal's decision was influenced by sufficient doubts. The applicants also claimed denial of procedural fairness by the Tribunal. The court was required to determine if there was merit in these grounds of appeal and whether the appeal had a prospect of success.

The court found that the applicants' written case was formulaic and did not address the grounds of appeal or the reasons of the lower courts. The court considered the correctness of the Federal Court's decision and found no reason to doubt it. The applicants' claims of procedural unfairness and errors in findings of fact were deemed to lack merit. The court concluded that if special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have no prospect of success. Accordingly, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed.

The orders of the court were that the application for special leave to appeal be dismissed and that the Registrar be directed to draw up, sign and seal an order to that effect.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established