Applicant S69 of 2003 v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 628

[2005] HCATrans 628

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S172 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT S69 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 MONDAY, 29 AUGUST 2005, AT 9.34 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The applicants are four members of a family.  The father is the only member of the family who has lodged an application for a protection visa.  In accordance with the proceedings below, we have determined this matter in relation to the claims made by the father applicant, and will refer to him as “the applicant”. 

The applicant is a national of Sri Lanka.  He claims to fear persecution by reason of his political activities in connection with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.  He arrived in Australia on 17 April 1996 and lodged an application for a protection visa on 11 June 1996.  On 12 March 1998, the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister, made on 6 May 1996, not to grant the applicant a protection visa.  On 10 November 2004, the Federal Magistrates Court dismissed an appeal against that decision.  On 31 March 2005, Sackville J sitting as the Full Federal Court dismissed an appeal against that decision.  The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the decision of the Full Federal Court.

The applicant claims that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error by finding that certain letters produced in support of his claim were contrived and self-serving, and therefore of little assistance to him.  The Full Federal Court correctly held that “this is not a case where the letters supported an otherwise plausible case.  The [Tribunal] independently found that the [applicant] was not a credible witness and that his account of events could not be accepted in important respects.”

The applicant’s submissions cannot overcome the Tribunal’s unfavourable findings of fact.  Nothing in the reasons of the Courts below discloses any error of law.  Accordingly, this application for special leave to appeal must be dismissed as it raises no question of law.

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 9.35 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED