BZAE of 2004 & Anor v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 618

[2005] HCATrans 618

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B30 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

BZAE OF 2004

First Applicant

BZAF OF 2004

Second 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 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   In August 2002, the Refugee Review Tribunal rejected the joint applications of the applicants, a husband and wife who are Bangladeshi citizens, for a protection visa because the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants faced persecution in Bangladesh by reason of the husband’s role as a BNP activist.  In February 2003, the Federal Court dismissed an application for review of the Tribunal’s decision and in August 2003, the Full Court of the Federal Court dismissed an appeal from the Federal Court.  On 10 September 2004, Gleeson CJ and Heydon J refused to grant special leave to appeal from the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court.

On 30 September 2004, the applicants filed an application in the Federal Magistrates Court for an order of review of the Tribunal’s decision.  That application was dismissed on 8 November 2004.  The applicants filed another application in the Federal Magistrates Court on 2 December 2004, which was summarily dismissed by Federal Magistrate Jarrett on 14 February 2005.  Jarrett FM also ordered that the applicants not file any further applications to review the Tribunal’s decision without leave of the court.  The applicants then filed an application in the Federal Court on 28 February 2005 for leave to appeal the interlocutory judgment of Jarrett FM.

The Federal Court refused an application for an extension of time in which to file and serve an application for leave to appeal the interlocutory judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court because the applicant did not offer an explanation as to why the application was filed out of time and because the applicant’s notice of appeal did not particularise the errors in the Federal Magistrate’s decision.  The Federal Court also refused an application for leave to appeal the decision of the Magistrates Court and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent’s costs on an indemnity basis.

The applicant’s special leave application complained of errors of law and procedural errors.  The applicant also relied on Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966; 190 ALR 601, but did not demonstrate the necessary factual basis. However nothing in the special leave application gives any ground for thinking that an appeal has any prospects of success.

The application is dismissed.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 9.32 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED