MZWGL v MIMIA

[2006] HCATrans 687

[2006] HCATrans 687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M31 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

MZWGL

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2006, AT 9.20 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a national of India.  He arrived in Australia in December 2001 and soon after applied for a protection visa claiming to be a refugee within the Refugees Convention and Protocol.  He alleged a well‑founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion and political opinion.  His claim was based on the fact that he alleged that he had been a leader of a Muslim student association and had experienced problems in India from Hindus and the authorities after 1987 which made him fearful to return there.

The applicant’s claim was rejected by a delegate of the Minister in October 2002.  The Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.  It concluded that the applicant was not a credible witness and that his evidence was frequently inconsistent and incongruous. 

The applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.  This application was heard by McInnis FM in the Federal Magistrates Court.  In March 2005, the Federal Magistrate dismissed the application.  He found no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision and no basis for concluding a lack of good faith on the part of the Tribunal.  In fact, he found that the Tribunal had assessed the evidence carefully and provided reasons for its adverse credibility finding. 

The applicant then appealed to the Federal Court of Australia, the jurisdiction of which was exercised by Wilcox J.  His Honour noted the attempts of the applicant to demonstrate jurisdictional error, including in a denial of natural justice.  However, he concluded that the applicant’s arguments failed to relate his grounds of complaint to the evidence in the case. 

The applicant specifically complained before Wilcox J that there had been no interpreter at the Tribunal and that he could not understand the Tribunal member or vice-versa.  However, as Wilcox J observed, there was no suggestion of this complaint in the reasons of the Tribunal.  It appeared to be contrary to the detailed reasons of the Tribunal demonstrating an awareness of the applicant’s contentions.  The point had not been raised before the Federal Magistrate.  And no attempt was made to secure the tape recording or a transcript of the hearing and place it before the Federal Court.  In these circumstances, Wilcox J rejected the belated claims of communication problems.

The application for special leave to appeal to this Court is without merit and bound to fail for the reasons given by Wilcox J in the Federal Court.  No legal or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated.  In effect, the applicant is merely seeking to re-argue the factual merits of a case in which he was disbelieved.  The application for special leave must be dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application for special leave falls to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition signed by Callinan J and myself.

AT 9.23 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED