Applicant S1000 of 2003 v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 641

[2005] HCATrans 641

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S241 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT S1000 OF 2003

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 CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 30 AUGUST 2005, AT 9.37 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh.  He claims to fear persecution by reason of his involvement with student politics in Bangladesh during the 1990s.   He was a member of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party.  He arrived in Australia on 12 July 1995 and lodged an application for a protection visa in August 1998.  A delegate for the Minister refused the application.  The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision.  The applicant then joined the Muin and Lie (2002) 76 ALJR 966; 190 ALR 601 class action and, pursuant to the orders of Gaudron J, filed an application for an order nisi. That application was rejected by Emmett J of the Federal Court.

The applicant then commenced fresh proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court.  That Court dismissed an application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision on the basis that the proceedings were vexatious and an abuse of process.  On 9 March 2005, the Federal Court upheld the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court, concluding that “the institution of these fresh proceedings involved an attempt to relitigate the same issues that had been dismissed by Emmett J and discontinued before Gyles J”.  The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against that decision.

Even if these proceedings did not amount to an abuse of process, we would have no choice but to refuse special leave in light of the factual findings made by the Tribunal.  The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was a highly unreliable witness and did not accept his claims.  These are questions of fact.  There is nothing to support the applicant’s claims that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error, or committed any error of law.  Accordingly, 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 9.38 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED