MZRAE v MIMIA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 170

[2006] HCATrans 170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M141 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

MZRAE

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 11 APRIL 2006, AT 1.54 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J:   The applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Sundberg J) exercising the appellate jurisdiction of that Court. By those orders, Sundberg J dismissed the applicant’s appeal against orders of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The applicant claims to have been persecuted by the Sri Lankan Army because of her Tamil ethnicity and imputed political opinion arising out of her twin brother’s involvement with the LTTE.  There are two grounds of appeal advanced in the draft notice of appeal to this Court:  first, that the Federal Court erred in accepting that it was neither necessary nor relevant to make a finding about the reason why the applicant had difficulty in obtaining a death certificate for her brother, and secondly that the Federal Court erred in finding that it was open to the Tribunal to use general country information as it did.

It cannot be said that the Tribunal’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error.  The Tribunal did not fail to consider any essential aspect of the applicant’s claim, and it was entitled to rely on general country information as it did.  The applicant has not advanced any question which would warrant a grant of special leave.  We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the court below.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 1.56 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED