S135 of 2003 v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 531

[2005] HCATrans 531

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S97 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

S135 OF 2003

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 SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 5 AUGUST 2005, AT 8.56 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   On 23 October 2002, the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa to the applicant.  On 12 March 2003, the Federal Court dismissed an application for a review of that decision.  The applicant then applied to this Court for an order nisi for constitutional writs to prevent the respondent from removing the applicant from Australia, and for a review of the Tribunal's decision.  That application was remitted to the Federal Court by this Court on 20 August 2003.  The application was dismissed by Emmett J on 16 July 2004.  This is an application for special leave to appeal against the decision of Moore J of the Federal Court, given on 17 February 2005, dismissing an appeal against the decision of Emmett J.

The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh.  He is a homosexual.  He claims to fear persecution on the basis of his sexuality and his religion.  

The Tribunal did not find the applicant to be a reliable witness.  It concluded that so much of his evidence as could be believed did not amount to persecution for the purposes of the Refugee Convention, under which Australia owes protection obligations to refugees.  The applicant’s submissions are pro forma.  He claims that the Tribunal’s decision was affected by actual bias, jurisdictional error and was in breach of the rules of natural justice.  There is nothing in the Tribunal’s reasons to support these claims.  The applicant seeks to re-argue questions of fact.  That is not a basis for a grant of special leave to appeal to this Court.  As this application raises no arguable question of law, it must be dismissed.

The application for special leave is dismissed.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application is dismissed.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 8.56 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED