NALK v MIMIA

[2006] HCATrans 192

[2006] HCATrans 192

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S542 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

NALK

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 12 APRIL 2006, AT 9.45 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a Bangladeshi claiming to have been a political activist with the BNP.  The Refugee Review Tribunal upheld a decision by a delegate of the respondent to refuse a protection visa.  The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had been a BNP branch organiser who had been threatened with harm by the Awami League, and that false charges had been laid against him.  But the Tribunal held that the applicant had no well‑founded fear of persecution:  the BNP had gained power in Bangladesh, and effective State protection was available. 

Thereafter, the Federal Magistrates Court (Raphael FM) dismissed an application for review; the Federal Court of Australia (Moore J) dismissed an appeal; the applicant sought special leave to appeal to this Court; that application was deemed abandoned; and a further application for special leave was heard and refused.

The applicant then made a fresh application for review in the Federal Magistrates Court.  It was dismissed by Lloyd‑Jones FM.  The Federal Court (Branson J) refused an application for leave to appeal, after a hearing at which the applicant did not appear, on the ground that there was no error in the Federal Magistrate’s decision.

The applicant’s application for special leave to appeal against Branson J’s order consisted of a collection of generalised complaints unrelated to the circumstances of the case, factual arguments rejected by the Tribunal, and factual complaints about what happened before the Tribunal, Lloyd‑Jones FM and in relation to the Federal Court hearing which are unsupported by evidence.  The application does not raise any issue of law, and it must be dismissed.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.  I publish the disposition signed by Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.47 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED