MZXGP v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 215

[2007] HCATrans 215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M131 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

MZXGP

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 22 MAY 2007 AT 9.41 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant, a national of Sri Lanka, arrived in Australia in February 2003 and applied for a protection visa shortly thereafter.  The applicant claimed to be entitled to protection by Australia as a refugee within the Refugees Convention and Protocol, given effect by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act").

In May 2005 a delegate of the Minister refused the application.  The applicant then applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  It dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was "entirely lacking in credibility" and concluding that the posited grounds relied on by him for the asserted fear of persecution, if he were to return to Sri Lanka, had not been made out.  In essence, the Convention grounds invoked were said to arise because the applicant was a "Tamil Muslim" (a term used by the applicant to describe himself) and because of his association with his mother's suspected involvement in the LTTE organisation of "Tamil Tigers".  For factual reasons, based on its assessment of the evidence, the Tribunal dismissed each of these grounds and hence the applicant's application for review.

Judicial review was sought unsuccessfully in the Federal Magistrates Court and an appeal was taken to the Federal Court whose appellate jurisdiction was exercised by Middleton J.  In September 2006, his Honour dismissed the appeal confirming the unavailability of judicial review and the absence of any reasonably arguable case of jurisdictional or other legal error. 

We have reviewed the applicant's written case. Like Middleton J below, we are unconvinced that the arguments reveal any prospects of success in establishing jurisdictional or legal error, were special leave to be granted. An argument based by the applicant on s 424A of the Act is not reasonably arguable. In these circumstances, special leave is refused.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application has been dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules.  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 Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 9.43 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED