NBIO v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 289

[2007] HCATrans 289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S381 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

NBIO

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 14 JUNE 2007, AT 9.34 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of South Africa.  A decision by a delegate of the first respondent to refuse a protection visa was upheld by the Refugee Review Tribunal.

The Federal Magistrates Court (Mowbray FM) dismissed an application for judicial review.  The Federal Court of Australia (Edmonds J) dismissed an appeal.

The applicant wishes to agitate the following issues on his appeal, if special leave were granted:

(a)Did Edmonds J in effect deny natural justice by criticising a basis on which the applicant put his claim without the criticism having been put to the applicant?

(b)Did the Tribunal fail to consider a particular social group which was an amalgam of the two groups that were considered by the Tribunal (namely, members of the family of his father (a special forces member and Selous Scout) and white South African males of an age identified with the apartheid era who were poor and poorly educated)?

(c)Are affirmative action programmes favouring non‑whites and disfavouring whites persecutory?

(d)Ought the Tribunal to have notified the applicant of certain facts pursuant to s 424A(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958?

(e)Was the Tribunal's reasoning irrational?

The applicant has insufficient prospects of success in securing answers to these questions which could result in the appeal being allowed to justify a grant of special leave.  Factual findings of the Tribunal which are beyond challenge preclude success in relation to (b), (c) and (e), and (a) and (d) are not soundly based.  The application is dismissed.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.

I publish the disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.36 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED