Applicant Nati of 2002 v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 542

[2005] HCATrans 542

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S127 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT NATI OF 2002

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 5 AUGUST 2005, AT 8.59 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  He claims to fear persecution for his affiliation and activities with the BNP political party.  On 6 August 2002 the Refugee Review Tribunal handed down its decision, affirming the decision of the Minister’s delegate to refuse the applicant’s application for a protection visa.  The applicant subsequently applied to the Federal Court for a review of the Tribunal’s decision.  Jacobson J remitted the application to the Federal Magistrates Court.  The Federal Magistrates Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, and the Federal Court dismissed an appeal against that decision on the grounds that there was no reviewable error of law either in the decision of the Magistrate or the Tribunal.  The applicant has already filed applications for special leave to appeal to this Court on two occasions.  The second application was abandoned due to the applicant’s failure to comply with this Court’s rules regarding time limits for filing. 

On 13 October 2004, Mowbray FM dismissed a further application for leave to appeal to the Federal Magistrates Court as incompetent, as it was filed outside the required time.  On 28 February 2005, Jacobson J of the Federal Court refused an application for an extension to file and serve an application for leave to appeal.  The applicant did not attend the Federal Court hearing and did not provide a doctor’s certificate to substantiate his claim to have been prevented from doing so by illness. 

The application for special leave is pro forma in character.  It relies on Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966; 190 ALR 601, but without any factual basis. It further alleges actual bias on the part of the Tribunal, and jurisdictional error by the Tribunal, the Federal Court and the Full Federal Court through their reliance upon “agency reports”. In the absence of any particularisation of these allegations, the submissions cannot be seen as anything other than an embarrassment to the Courts. Generic submissions of this nature will not assist applicants in their efforts to obtain a grant of special leave to appeal to this Court.

The application is out of time.  In light of the procedural history of this case, and the absence of any arguable error of law in any of the decisions below, the application must be dismissed.

The application for special leave is dismissed.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application is dismissed.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 8.59 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED