NALC v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 407

[2005] HCATrans 407

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S58 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

NALC

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, 16 JUNE 2005, AT 9.39 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GLEESON CJ:   The applicant is a citizen of the Russian Federation and an adherent of the Jehovah’s Witness faith.  She claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of her ethnicity and religion.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal disbelieved key elements of the applicant’s claims that she had suffered harm in the Russian Republic of Yakutia after 1996. It found significant inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had suffered discriminatory harm in Yakutia prior to 1996 but considered that this did not amount to “serious harm” within the meaning of s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). For these reasons the Tribunal found that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason should she return to Russia.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Court.  The application was remitted to the Federal Magistrates Court.  That Court dismissed the application because no jurisdictional error in the decision of the Tribunal had been demonstrated.  An appeal to the Federal Court (Wilcox J) was dismissed.  His Honour stressed that the reasons of the Federal Magistrate were comprehensive and carefully considered.

We have considered the applicant’s written submissions and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court.  There are insufficient prospects of success in any appeal to this Court from the Federal Court to warrant a grant of special leave.  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 9.40 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED