Nase v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 263

[2005] HCATrans 263

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S39 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

NASE

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 WEDNESDAY, 27 APRIL 2005, AT 1.49 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The applicant is a citizen of India.  He arrived in Australia on 25 November 2001 and lodged an application for a protection visa on 8 January 2002.  On 27 May 2002 a delegate for the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs refused to grant the visa.  The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed that decision on 30 April 2003.  The applicant did not attend the determination hearing and the Tribunal refused to grant the postponement requested by the applicant.  On 8 December 2003, Stone J dismissed an application to have the Tribunal’s decision set aside by the Federal Court.  On 11 November 2004, Emmett J dismissed an application for an extension of time to appeal against Stone J’s decision.

The applicant submits that the Tribunal’s decision was attended by jurisdictional error and that he was denied procedural fairness.  He claims that the Tribunal did not take all relevant information into account and that the decision was affected by actual bias.  The applicant has not included in the papers the reasons for the orders made by Stone J and Emmett J, and did not particularise these allegations.  Upon examining the Tribunal’s reasons, nothing amounting to denial of procedural fairness or actual bias is apparent.  The applicant does not specifically claim that he was denied procedural fairness due to the refusal to postpone the determination hearing.  In any event, such a claim could not succeed in light of the history of correspondence between the Tribunal and the applicant in relation to fixing a hearing date, and the fact that the Tribunal contacted the applicant’s agent, who informed the Tribunal that he would inform the applicant of the refusal and that the applicant should attend the hearing.

The application is out of time.  There is nothing in the draft notice of appeal or summary of argument to suggest that either the Tribunal or the Federal Court erred in their findings.  An appeal in this matter would have no prospect of success.  Accordingly, the application must be dismissed.

Under the power conferred by rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 1.49 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED