VPAX & Anor v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 217

[2005] HCATrans 217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M7 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

VPAX

First Applicant

VPAY

Second Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 21 APRIL 2005, AT 9.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

McHUGH J:   The applicants are mother and daughter.  Both are Sri Lankan Tamils.  Only the first-named applicant made specific claims under the Refugee Convention with the second-named applicant being included in the first applicant’s application as a member of her family unit.

The applicant claims that the Federal Court erred in not holding that the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) “had exceeded its jurisdiction and/or failed to exercise jurisdiction by not addressing the question of whether the [applicant] would be persecuted in his (sic) home region by the LTTE and then considering ... whether it was reasonable in the circumstances for him to relocate to another part of Sri Lanka”.

The Federal Magistrates Court of Australia rejected this argument, holding that the Tribunal’s findings were open to it on the facts.  The Federal Court of Australia affirmed.  The reasons of the courts below do not disclose any errors of law.

The application raises no question of law.

The application for special leave is dismissed.

Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 9.33 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED