NBKMA v MIMIA

[2006] HCATrans 173

[2006] HCATrans 173

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S529 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

NBKMA

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 11 APRIL 2006, AT 1.58 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J:   The applicant, a citizen of Indonesia, seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Bennett J) exercising the appellate jurisdiction of that Court. By those orders, Bennett J dismissed the applicant’s appeal against orders of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.

The applicant claimed to fear persecution on the basis of his Chinese ethnicity and his Christian beliefs.  He referred to a number of attacks against Christians by Muslims in Indonesia and claimed that his business and residence was damaged by fire in the riots of May 1998.  Although the Tribunal accepted the factual matters put to it by the applicant, it was not satisfied that the applicant had, in the past, suffered harm amounting to persecution for a Convention reason, or that his fear of persecution for a Convention reason was well founded.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The grounds in the applicant’s draft notice of appeal are that the Tribunal did not apply the proper test for persecution, that it failed to take into account relevant considerations and that there was no evidence on which to base the finding that the May 1998 riots were a one‑off occurrence.  The applicant’s written submissions in support of the application are very brief and do not elaborate on these grounds.

It is not arguable that the Tribunal erred by not applying the proper test of persecution.  Further, the applicant has not demonstrated that the Tribunal’s findings with respect to the other grounds outlined above were affected by jurisdictional error.  Accordingly, there are insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 2.00 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED