SZANB v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 528

[2005] HCATrans 528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S417 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

SZANB

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 8.55 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh.  He claims to have a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of his political affiliation and beliefs.  He seeks special leave to appeal against the decision of the Federal Court, dated 29 September 2004, dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court given on 18 June 2004.  That Court upheld the objection of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs to the competency of the applicant’s application for judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, affirming the decision of the Minister’s delegate to refuse his application for a Protection Visa.  The Tribunal’s decision was given on 27 March 2003.  That decision indicates that the Tribunal had already determined the matter in a decision given on 1 February 1999.

The applicant seeks to raise several grounds of appeal that have already been considered and rejected by the courts below. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions of those courts. The applicant also claims that Jacobson J, in the Federal Court, erred in determining that certain information relied upon by the applicant fell within the terms of s 424A(3)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This finding was not material to the outcome of the case and does not provide a sufficient basis for a grant of special leave to appeal.

He also claims that he was denied natural justice because the Tribunal failed to give him “an opportunity to make written submissions about the alleged inconsistencies in my evidence”.  The Tribunal had no obligation to give him such an opportunity.  Moreover, the Tribunal’s reasons show that it would have rejected his application even if these inconsistencies had not occurred.

The application does not raise any question of law appropriate for determination by this Court, and would have no prospect of success.  Accordingly, the application for special leave must be dismissed.

Under the power conferred by 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