SZCCX & Anor v MIMA & Anor [2007] HCATrans 213 (22 May 2007)

Last Updated: 31 May 2007

[2007] HCATrans 213

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S269 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZCCX

First Applicant

SZCCY

Second Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 22 MAY 2007 AT 9.35 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J: This is an application for special leave to appeal to this Court from orders of Conti J, exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia. By those orders, Conti J dismissed the applicants' appeal. He did so on the footing that the applicants were unable to demonstrate, and did not seek to demonstrate, an error in the reasoning of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affecting them but sought an adjournment to enable them to obtain unspecified evidentiary material from India "in refutation of the Tribunal's findings".

As the applicants had first arrived in Australia in February 2003, Conti J upheld the Minister's objection to the adjournment. He refused the adjournment and, finding no error on the part of Barnes FM, from whom the appeal was brought, he reached his conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed. Given the procedural and discretionary character of the essential reasons of the Federal Court for its disposition, the application to appeal to this Court appears most unpromising.

Nevertheless, we have independently considered the reasons for decision of the Tribunal and of Barnes FM. From these it emerges that the applicants are husband and wife who are nationals of India. They are both Hindus and in 2002 were living in a part of India where communal violence broke out substantially between Muslims and Hindus. According to country evidence, most of the violence was directed at Muslims, not Hindus. However, the applicants claimed refugee status on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution, deriving from the applicant husband's support for the Congress-I Party and opposition to the BJP Government of their State.

The Tribunal rejected the application for lack of detail and on other grounds. The applicants sought judicial review from the Federal Magistrates Court where Barnes FM found no jurisdictional or other legal error and no breach of the Migration Act 1968 (Cth). The written submissions in support of the appeal to the Federal Court did not establish any basis for the intervention of that Court. Nor does the written case before this Court, which is of a template variety, relying on Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57, show any reasonably arguable error.

No basis has been shown to warrant the grant of special leave. In effect, the application is an attempt to re-argue the factual merits without establishing jurisdictional or legal error.

Because the applicants are unrepresented, the application has been dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules. The application is refused. Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 9.37 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED