NAQZ of 2002 v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 84

[2005] HCATrans 084

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S141 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

NAQZ OF 2002

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 3 MARCH 2005, AT 9.41 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The applicant and his wife, who are Indians, claimed to be Bangladeshis fearing religious and political persecution.  The Refugee Review Tribunal found that they were not Bangladeshis, but Indians, and was unable to be satisfied that they had problems of persecution in India in the past, or would have them in future.

The Federal Magistrates Court refused an application for judicial review:  it found no jurisdictional error and no procedural unfairness. 

Hill J, in the Federal Court, dismissed an appeal.  He held that the principle in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966 did not apply because the evidence did not support its application. He also held that no procedural unfairness or jurisdictional error was established.

An application for special leave to appeal was deemed abandoned on 29 April 2004.

The present application was filed about eight months late.  The application relies on the Muin principle.  That must fail for the reasons given by Hill J.  No other ground of jurisdictional error is made out. 

Since an appeal would inevitably fail, there is no point in extending time, and the application must be dismissed with costs.

Pursuant to rule 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application is dismissed with costs.

AT 9.41 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED