SQMB & Anor v MIMIA & Anor [2006] HCATrans 165 (11 April 2006)

--

SQMB & Anor v MIMIA & Anor [2006] HCATrans 165 (11 April 2006)

Last Updated: 1 May 2006

[2006] HCATrans 165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A46 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SQMB AND SQNB

Applicants

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 11 APRIL 2006, AT 1.44 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J: The applicants, husband and wife and citizens of India, are unsuccessful applicants for protection visas and seek special leave to appeal against the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. By those orders, Finn, Emmett and Bennett JJ dismissed the applicants’ appeal against orders of the Federal Court dismissing an application for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicants a protection visa.

The applicants elected not to give oral evidence before the Tribunal. Before the Federal Court the applicants complained that the decision of the Tribunal was affected by the fraud of their migration agent, as the agent had not informed them that the Tribunal invited them to appear before it to give evidence. Following evidence from both the applicant husband and the migration agent, Mansfield J held that the decision not to attend the hearing was made by the applicant husband and was not a consequence of fraud. This finding was upheld on appeal.

Because the applicants are unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

In this application, the applicants’ written submissions in support of the application for special leave are to some extent formulaic and fail to identify any question of law that would warrant a grant of special leave. The Tribunal was entitled to determine the application in the absence of the applicants and no basis has been advanced for overturning Mansfield J’s conclusion that the applicants’ migration agent had informed them of the option of appearing to give oral evidence before the Tribunal. Whilst the Tribunal’s reasons for rejecting the protection visa application were brief, there is no jurisdictional error apparent in the decision of the Tribunal, nor is any error apparent in the decision of Mansfield J or the Full Court.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 1.46 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED