BZAC of 2004 v RRT & Anor

[2005] HCATrans 685

[2005] HCATrans 685

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B43 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

BZAC OF 2004

Applicant

and

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

First Respondent

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2005, AT 9.22 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan.  He arrived in Australia on a temporary business visa in 2003 and claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of religion.  The applicant claims to have been born into a Sunni Muslim family and to have suffered maltreatment when he became associated with Shia Muslims, joined a Shia organisation and married a woman of that sect in 1992.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s claims that he had been persecuted by Sunni fundamentalists.  In particular, the Tribunal rejected as not being genuine documents tendered by the applicant in support of his application, among them a letter from a doctor in Gujranwala, Pakistan, detailing injuries suffered by the applicant following an assault.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court.  He submitted, among other things, that he was denied procedural fairness by the Tribunal as the country information relied upon by it had not been given or explained to him.  The Court dismissed his application on the basis that the applicant had not shown jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.  An appeal to the Federal Court (Kiefel J), in which the applicant sought also to attack the rejection by the Tribunal of the documents tendered in support of his claims, was dismissed.

We have reviewed the applicant’s written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court.  There are insufficient prospects of success in any appeal to this Court from the decision of 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 this application for special leave.  I publish that disposition signed by Kirby J and myself.

AT 9.24 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED