SZSRV & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
[2014] HCASL 149
SZSRV & ANOR
v
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION & ANOR
[2014] HCASL 149
S75/2014
The applicants, who are husband and wife, are nationals of the Republic of India. They left India and travelled to New Zealand in April 2010. They arrived in Australia on 3 March 2012. The applicant husband applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 23 March 2012. He claimed to fear persecution in India as the result of his political activities. The applicant wife's claim was as a member of her husband's family unit. A delegate of the first respondent refused to grant protection visas to the applicants.
The applicants sought a review of the delegate's decision in the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Tribunal was critical of the husband's evidence, which it found to be vague and inconsistent. It found that the wife's evidence did not provide material support for her husband's evidence of crucial matters. The Tribunal was not satisfied of the truth of the husband's account of his political activity in India or that he had been unaware that he could have made a claim for asylum in New Zealand. It was not satisfied that either of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
An application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision was dismissed by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia (Judge Emmett). An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia was dismissed (Flick J).
The applicants apply for 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' proposed grounds of appeal contain unparticularised assertions that the Tribunal made "legal and factual errors" and that its decision was "unjust". Their written case is formulaic and bears no relation to the judgment below. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of that judgment. 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
15 August 2014
S.J. Gageler
0
0