SZIRO & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship & Anor [2008] HCATrans 111 (29 February 2008)

Last Updated: 4 March 2008

[2008] HCATrans 111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S319 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZIRO

First Applicant

SZIRP

Second Applicant

SZIRQ

Third Applicant

SZIRR

Fourth Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders
GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 29 FEBRUARY 2008, AT 9.46 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

GUMMOW J: The applicants, a husband, wife and two children, are citizens of India who arrived in Australia on 1 August 2005. On 16 November 2005 a delegate of the first respondent refused the application for protection visas. The husband was invited to give oral evidence before the Refugee Review Tribunal, but did not appear for the hearing. Pursuant to s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Tribunal proceeded to make its decision. It found that there was insufficient material to support the husband’s claim to have been involved in human rights activities as a journalist. The application to the Tribunal was rejected on 24 February 2006.

On 12 October 2006, Scarlett FM dismissed the application for review of the Tribunal’s decision. His Honour found that the Tribunal had not breached any provisions of the Migration Act, and was entitled to proceed as it did.

Heerey J dismissed the appeal to the Federal Court on 26 February 2007. His Honour found that the Tribunal reviewed the available information and based its decision on that information. There was no jurisdictional error.

The applicants filed an application for special leave to appeal to this Court on 26 March 2007. That application was deemed abandoned after the failure of the applicants to file a written case within time. Heydon J dismissed the applicants’ summons for reinstatement of the special leave application on 28 May 2007. His Honour found that the summons should be dismissed because even if the application for special leave were reinstated, it would have no prospect of success.

The applicants seek leave to appeal from the decision of Heydon J. The draft notice of appeal replicates the grounds advanced in the Federal Court and is not directed to the necessity for leave to appeal from the decision of Heydon J. No reason is advanced to doubt the correctness of his Honour’s decision. Leave is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for leave. I publish the disposition signed by Justice Kiefel and myself.

AT 9.48 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED