SZAKP & Ors v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 833

[2005] HCATrans 833

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S272 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZAKP

First Applicant

SZAKQ

Second Applicant

SZAKR

Third Applicant

SZAKS

Fourth 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, 7 OCTOBER 2005, AT 9.05 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

McHUGH J:   The applicants are citizens of Bangladesh.  They claim to fear persecution on the basis of their Christian religion.  They arrived in Australia on 5 January 2000.  On 12 March 2003, the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant them protection visas.  The Federal Magistrates Court refused an application for a review of that decision, and the Federal Court dismissed an appeal against the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court.

The applicants’ submissions in support of this application are pro forma.  It appears that the situation was similar in the Federal Court proceedings, where Whitlam J referred to the grounds relied on as “gibberish”.  They do not refer to the particulars of this case in any meaningful way and are of no assistance in this application. 

The Tribunal held that “some of the evidence given by the applicants was truthful. However ... the applicant husband significantly exaggerated and embellished some aspects of his claims in order to enhance his refugee status.”  Several of the claims were “implausible”.  While the Tribunal did not conclude that the applicant husband was an unreliable witness in general, it nonetheless was “not satisfied that the applicant has ever been attacked because of his religion, or because he was perceived to have converted his nephew’s wife to Christianity”.  These findings were open to the Tribunal to make.  The result is a conclusion that the applicants are not persons to whom Australia owes obligations under the Refugee Convention.  In the absence of any arguable error of law, it is impossible for the applicants to overcome these findings of fact.  Accordingly, the application for special leave to appeal must be refused.

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

AT 9.05 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED