NALQ v Mimi(A

[2005] HCATrans 412

[2005] HCATrans 412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S59 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

NALQ

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 9.45 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GLEESON CJ:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of political persecution.  He describes himself as a homeopathic doctor.  He arrived in Australia in 2001 on a visa valid for a one month stay.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claims as vague, lacking credibility and inconsistent with available independent country information. The Tribunal found it “difficult … to satisfy itself of the veracity of the applicant’s claims” because the applicant had not appeared to give oral evidence after an invitation to do so under s 425 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”). The applicant had informed the Tribunal he was ill and unable to attend the scheduled hearing, but the Tribunal considered the information the applicant and his migration agent provided about his illness to be unsatisfactory and proceeded with its determination.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Court. The application was remitted to the Federal Magistrates Court. Before that Court the applicant argued that, in proceeding as it had, the Tribunal had failed to afford the applicant procedural fairness or had breached ss 425 or 426A of the Act. That Court dismissed the application because no jurisdictional error in the decision of the Tribunal had been shown. An appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court (Ryan, French and Nicholson JJ) was dismissed. The Full Court held that there had been no failure by the Tribunal to provide the applicant with a real opportunity to be heard and no breach of the legislation however construed.

We have considered the applicant’s written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Full Court of the Federal Court. There are insufficient prospects of success in any appeal to this Court against the decision of the Full 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 9.47 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED