CZAF v MIMIA

Case

[2006] HCATrans 284

No judgment structure available for this case.

[2006] HCATrans 284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S576 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

CZAF

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW ACJ
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 13 JUNE 2006, AT 9.19 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW ACJ:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who claims to fear political persecution.  His claim for a protection visa was rejected by the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal found that the applicant’s claims had been exaggerated and lacked credibility.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Court.  That application was remitted to the Federal Magistrates Court where it was dismissed in July 2003.  An appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Gyles J and an application for special leave to appeal to this Court was deemed abandoned on 8 June 2004.  A second application for special leave was dismissed by McHugh and Heydon JJ on 21 April 2005.  A new application for judicial review was made out of time to the Federal Magistrates Court.  That Court dismissed the application as incompetent.  An application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Jacobson J.

There would be no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court from the Federal Court.  Special leave is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.  I publish the disposition signed by Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.20 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Immigration

Legal Concepts

  • Judicial Review

  • Jurisdiction

  • Natural Justice

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Standing

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0