SZAJX v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 279

[2005] HCATrans 279

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S327 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

SZAJX

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
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 27 APRIL 2005, AT 4.34 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J:   This is an application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of a judge of the Federal Court exercising the appellate jurisdiction of that court affirming a judgment of a Federal Magistrate who refused to interfere with a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal which had declined to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The applicant who is a Bangladeshi citizen claimed to fear persecution by reason of his past involvement as an opposition activist.  As the Federal Court pointed out however, the Tribunal’s findings were that there was no evidence that the applicant was in any danger, that his claims that he was known to “all of the top leaders” of the party to which he belonged and who would wish to punish him for disobedience were implausible, and that there was no other basis for the holding by the applicant of any well‑founded fears of persecution.

In dealing with the decision of the Federal Magistrate, the Federal Court pointed out that no jurisdictional errors had been made and that the other complaints of the applicant were essentially that the Tribunal and the Magistrate should have made different findings of fact.

In this Court the applicant would seek to argue that the Federal Court decided the appeal to it in breach of the rules of natural justice, and should have held that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error.

In his outline of argument the applicant contends that the Tribunal took into account evidence adverse to him without giving him an opportunity to deal with it, and generally repeats the submissions that he made in the Federal Court regarding procedural fairness and jurisdictional error.

In our opinion this case at all levels turned on the particular findings of fact made by the Tribunal adverse to the applicant.  The contention that the Tribunal relied upon evidence with which the applicant was denied an opportunity to deal appears to be based upon the decision of this Court in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966; 190 ALR 601. The factual situation there however was quite different from the factual situation here with the result that that case does not assist the applicant.

There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Federal Court.  The application should be dismissed with costs.

Pursuant to rule 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal and order dismissing the application with costs.  I publish that disposition.

AT 4.36 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED