Applicant M41 of 2004 v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 208

[2007] HCATrans 208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M113 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT M41 OF 2004

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 9.22 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a national of Sri Lanka.  He arrived in Australia in May 2003 and applied for a protection visa pursuant to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"). The application was refused by a delegate of the Minister. The applicant then sought review of such refusal by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had been a member of the Sri Lankan Freedom Party ("SLFP") and, subsequently, the People's Alliance. However, it concluded that his involvement in politics had been minor and that he did not face a well‑founded fear of persecution, were he to return to Sri Lanka. Accordingly it dismissed the application.

The applicant sought judicial review from the Federal Magistrates Court.  An application for a constitutional writ in this Court was remitted to the Federal Court and transferred to the Federal Magistrates Court.  The proceedings were heard by McInnis FM who rejected the submission of jurisdictional or other legal error on the part of the Tribunal.

The applicant then appealed to the Federal Court of Australia. The appellate jurisdiction of that Court was exercised by Sundberg J. His Honour rejected, as without substance, an attempt to re-express the risk of persecution on a different basis from that advanced below. He also rejected complaints of a denial of natural justice and breach of s 424A of the Act.

We have considered the applicant's written case which substantially repeats the complaints made in the Federal Court. There is no substance in the assertion that the Tribunal misunderstood the Convention reason asserted or misinterpreted the Refugees Convention in so far as it defines refugees. Nor are we convinced that there is any merit in the complaint of a breach of s 424A of the Act. In these circumstances, the application does not enjoy reasonable prospects of success, were special leave granted to appeal to this Court. The application is refused.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, his application has been dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules.  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 9.25 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED