Applicant S1756-2003 v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 464

[2005] HCATrans 464

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S137 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT S1756 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

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON MONDAY, 1 AUGUST 2005, AT 2.55 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who claims to be entitled to refugee status due to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The Tribunal considered that the applicant was not a reliable witness and that aspects of his evidence “were internally inconsistent, inconsistent with evidence from other sources and implausible”.  The Tribunal therefore rejected key elements of the applicant’s factual claims and was unable to be satisfied on the material before it that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution should he return to Bangladesh.

The applicant first filed an application for judicial review in the Federal Court in December 1999.  That application appears to have been dismissed by consent by Katz J on 31 July 2000.  The applicant then became involved in the proceedings in this Court known as the Muin and Lie proceedings (2002) 190 ALR 601. Following the disposition of those proceedings the applicant’s application for orders nisi for constitutional writs was remitted to the Federal Court. Emmett J refused that application on 30 April 2004. The applicant then instituted fresh proceedings for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. That Court dismissed the application as disclosing no arguable grounds for judicial review and as constituting an abuse of process. An application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Jacobson J because there would be no prospects of success on an appeal were leave granted. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal from that refusal of leave.

In these circumstances there would be no prospect of success in any appeal to this Court from the Federal Court.  Accordingly, special leave to appeal 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 Kirby J and myself.

AT 2.57 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED