Applicant S1090-2003 v MIMA

[2007] HCATrans 173

[2007] HCATrans 173

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S299 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT S1090/2003

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 27 APRIL 2007, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of India who claims to fear political and religious persecution arising from, among other things, his involvement in the Muslim League.  On 1 July 1999, the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse the applicant's application for a protection visa.  The Tribunal found that the applicant was not a credible or reliable witness and declined to accept his claims. The Tribunal noted that even if it had accepted those claims, the harm the applicant claimed to fear did not appear to be motivated by a Convention reason, and that the applicant would not in any event face persecution if he relocated outside Calcutta.

An application for judicial review by the Federal Magistrates Court was dismissed by Scarlett FM on 11 April 2006 as no jurisdictional error had been shown and each of the appellant's grounds of appeal were either unsubstantiated, misconceived or otherwise devoid of merit.  In particular, there was no foundation to the applicant's allegations that the Tribunal denied him procedural fairness and acted in bad faith, nor did the Tribunal commit any error by failing to take into account the September 11 2001 attacks on the United States of America, which occurred some two years after the Tribunal's decision in 1999. 

The applicant's appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Tracey J on 8 August 2006.  His Honour concluded that no error had been shown in the Federal Magistrate's decision, and that the applicant's real complaint was that his claim had been rejected on its merits by the Tribunal.

The application for special leave to appeal does not advance any question of law that would justify the intervention of this Court.  In essence, the applicant's complaint turns on the adverse credibility-based findings made by the Tribunal, but neither that nor any of the Tribunal's other findings were tainted by jurisdictional error.  There are no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court.  Special 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 special leave.

I publish the disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.33 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED