MZWIK v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 479

[2005] HCATrans 479

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M17 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

MZWIK

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GLEESON CJ
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 4 AUGUST 2005, AT 9.18 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GLEESON CJ:   The applicant is a national of Sri Lanka.  He claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution by members of the People’s Alliance on the grounds of his association with the United National Party (“UNP”).

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The Tribunal accepted that the applicant’s family had a history of association with the UNP, but did not find the applicant to be a credible witness, given various inconsistencies between what he told the delegate and what he said before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal also found that while Sri Lanka has a violent election culture, the applicant’s fears of harm in the context of the generalised, multi-party violence that accompanies political campaigning in Sri Lanka did not constitute fears of persecution for Convention reasons.  Finally, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant would be able to obtain state protection in Sri Lanka were he to face attack by his political enemies.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court.  The applicant was informed of the hearing date in that Court, and wrote to the Registrar seeking that the case be relisted for the purpose of allowing him to retain legal counsel following “Christmas holidays”.  That request was rejected and the applicant failed to attend the hearing.  The Court dismissed the application on the basis that the applicant had shown no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision and was seeking merely to challenge the fact-finding of the Tribunal.  In the Federal Court, the applicant sought leave to appeal and an extension of time.  This application was refused by Sundberg J, and it is from this decision that the applicant now seeks special leave to appeal.

We have considered the applicant’s written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court.  There is no prospect of establishing error by Sundberg J.  Further, and in any event, the Tribunal’s decision discloses no jurisdictional error and it is clear from the applicant’s written case that he seeks a merits review of that decision.  Accordingly, special leave to appeal is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application for special leave.

AT 9.20 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED