MZXHI v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 370

[2007] HCATrans 370

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M158 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

MZXHI

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

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 2 AUGUST 2007, AT 9.21 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka who claimed to fear persecution on account of his political beliefs.  This persecution was said to have arisen because of his involvement in the UNP and as a result of his having been targeted by the LTTE.  On 11 January 2006, the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent minister to refuse the applicant's application for a protection visa.  While the Tribunal accepted that the applicant had been involved with the UNP, it found his claims to be highly exaggerated and lacking in credibility.

An application for judicial review of the Tribunal's decision was dismissed by Hartnett FM on 4 April 2006 when the applicant failed to appear.  The applicant then applied to have the application reinstated, but that application was in turn dismissed by Connolly FM on 5 May 2006 as the applicant had demonstrated neither a satisfactory reason for his non‑appearance, nor any arguable case of legal error on behalf of the Tribunal.

The applicant purported to appeal to the Federal Court, although he required both an extension of time and leave to appeal.  The applicant did not appear in the Federal Court, but his brother‑in‑law made submissions on his behalf.  Sundberg J treated the matter as an application for leave to appeal, and on 24 November 2006 granted an extension of time but dismissed the application.  As in the Federal Magistrates Court, the applicant had not shown a satisfactory reason for his non‑appearance, nor any error on behalf of the Tribunal.

The application for special leave to appeal does not advance any question of law that would justify the intervention of this Court.  There are no prospects of success on any appeal to this 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 and I publish the disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.23 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED