Applicant S1693-2003 v RRT && Ors

[2006] HCATrans 230

[2006] HCATrans 230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Perth  No P58 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT S1693 OF 2003

Applicant

and

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Second Respondent

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Third Respondent

Application for special 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 9.41 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of Iran claiming to fear persecution as a Mujahideen supporter.  His application for a protection visa was rejected by a delegate of the second respondent.

The Refugee Review Tribunal refused to set aside that decision.  It found that the claims advanced by the applicant were not factually credible and that there was no real chance that the applicant would be persecuted in Iran.

On 23 July 1997, the Federal Court of Australia (Carr J) rejected an application for review as not revealing any jurisdictional error.

The applicant then became one of the class represented by the appellant in Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 190 ALR 601. The applicant’s application for an order nisi to this Court was remitted to the Federal Court. French J rejected it. He found that it was more probable than not that not all the documents in the Department’s possession had been sent to the Tribunal. The documents in question were documents sent by the applicant’s brother about Iran’s treatment of Mujahideen supporters, and documents containing country information. However, French J held that in view of the Tribunal’s credit-based findings of fact, the documents were such that any failure to transmit them would have made no difference to the outcome in the Tribunal.

The Full Federal Court (Marshall, Mansfield and Siopis JJ) dismissed an appeal.

The applicant’s application for special leave to appeal, which was filed out of time, does not suggest that there are sufficient prospects of success in demonstrating error in the reasoning of French J and of the Full Court to justify the grant of special leave.  Leave to extend time is refused and the application is dismissed.

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 Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.43 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED