Applicant A16-2004 v MIMIA

[2006] HCATrans 219

[2006] HCATrans 219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Adelaide  No A44 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT A16 OF 2004

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 10 MAY 2006, AT 9.18 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of Nigeria who claims to fear persecution for reasons of religion, nationality and political opinion.  His claim for a protection visa was rejected by a delegate of the respondent on 7 November 1996. 

A Justice of this Court (Hayne J) dismissed the applicant’s application for orders nisi for constitutional writs respecting the decision of the delegate.  His Honour concluded that the application was futile in view of the numerous applications for review the applicant had previously filed.  These include an application to the Refugee Review Tribunal which was dismissed in May 2000, from which decision the applicant sought, but failed to obtain, judicial review in the Federal Court.  An appeal to the Full Court of that Court was dismissed and special leave to appeal to this Court was refused on 4 February 2002.  His Honour further noted that the application for constitutional writs was instituted well out of time, and “the course of events that has been revealed in this matter provides no reason for extending” the applicable time limits.

The applicant now contends that he was denied procedural fairness in the hearing before Hayne J.  However there is no merit whatsoever in the applicant’s claim that he was denied the opportunity to make submissions to his Honour, and the authorities cited in the applicant’s written case have no bearing on the present case.  There is no reason to doubt the conclusion that the application for constitutional writs was futile.

There would be no prospects of success on any appeal to the Full Court of this Court.  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 Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.20 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED