Applicant S432 of 2002 v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 625

[2005] HCATrans 625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S438 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT S432 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 CANBERRA ON MONDAY, 29 AUGUST 2005, AT 9.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The applicant is a national of India.  He claims to fear persecution by reason of his Muslim religion, and his participation in the Muslim League Party.  He arrived in Australia on 19 July 1999 and lodged an application for a protection visa with the then Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. 

On 21 January 2002 the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant commenced proceedings in this Court, seeking relief under s 75(v) of the Constitution in the form of a draft order nisi.  Gaudron J remitted that matter to the Federal Court, which dismissed the application for the order nisi.  Without seeking leave to do so, the applicant commenced further proceedings in the Federal Court to appeal against that decision.  Wilcox ACJ dismissed those proceedings as incompetent.  It is against that decision, and not the substantive determination of the Tribunal, that the applicant seeks special leave to appeal.  However, the entirety of the applicant’s written submissions in support of this application are directed towards the decision of the Tribunal.  They do not touch upon the proceedings in relation to the application for an order nisi.  As a result, the applicant’s submissions provide very limited assistance in determining this matter.  No substantive appeal of this matter has been heard by the Courts below.  The course of action taken by the applicant compels this Court to dismiss his application.

Furthermore, the applicant’s submissions do not contain any specific information about his case.  The allegations of errors in the decisions below are generic in nature.  Nothing in the applicant’s submissions supports these allegations, nor are they supported by the written judgments of the Courts below.  The Tribunal found that the applicant’s evidence contained inconsistencies which were not explained by him.  The evidence did not support his claims.  That is a factual finding which is open to the Tribunal to make.  The application raises no question of law.  Accordingly, it must be dismissed.

The application for special leave to appeal 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 9.33 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED