BZAM of 2004 & Ors

[2005] HCATrans 620

[2005] HCATrans 620

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B32 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

BZAM OF 2004

First Applicant

BZAN OF 2004

Second Applicant

BZAO OF 2004

Third Applicant

BZAP OF 2004

Fourth 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 9.32 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

McHUGH J:   The Refugee Review Tribunal rejected the claim of the applicant, a Bangladeshi, for a protection visa because the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was targeted by members of the Awami League in late 1999 or by members of the BNP after 1993 by reason of his membership of the Jatiya Party.  The applicant unsuccessfully appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the Federal Court and later abandoned an application for special leave to appeal the decision of the Federal Court.

On 10 December 2004, the applicant applied for a review of the Tribunal’s decision. The Federal Magistrates Court dismissed the applicant’s application under r 10.01(2)(b) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 because the applicant did not appear at the directions hearing on 31 January 2005.

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. The Court noted that the applicant had failed to make an application under r 16.05(2)(a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 for an order that the Court set aside its judgment to dismiss the application for review and that, had such an application been made, the order would have been set aside. However, the Federal Court refused to grant the extension of time, and refused an application for leave to appeal the decision of the Magistrates Court, because the applicant’s proposed appeal had no prospects of success. The Federal Court also 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