SZANH v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 492

[2005] HCATrans 492

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S427 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

SZANH

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GLEESON CJ
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 4 AUGUST 2005, AT 9.41 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GLEESON CJ:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh.  He claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of his involvement in the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“the BNP”) and his support for the feminist author, Taslima Nasreen.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The Tribunal accepted that the applicant may formerly have been involved in the BNP student wing, but rejected his claim that he was elected to office in that organisation in 2000-2001, nine years after ceasing to be a student.  In so finding, the Tribunal refused to rely upon a letter dated 24 March 2003, apparently from the BNP student wing, stating that the applicant was a party activist.  Instead, the Tribunal had recourse to country information from Bangladesh, which suggested that many “documented” claims were coloured by fraud, and its own experience of Bangladeshi cases, including several involving the applicant’s migration agent.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. The Court dismissed his application on the basis that the applicant had not shown jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. An appeal to the Federal Court (Sackville J) was dismissed. Sackville J gave detailed reasons. He held that the Tribunal’s comments concerning the applicant’s migration agent did not disclose a reasonable apprehension of bias. His Honour also held s 424A(3) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) applied to the country information concerning fraudulent documents. As a consequence of this, the Tribunal had not been required to give particulars of that information to the applicant. Further, and in any event, the Tribunal had afforded the applicant an opportunity to respond to these concerns.

We have reviewed the applicant’s written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court.  There are insufficient prospects of success in any appeal to this Court from the decision of the Federal Court.  Accordingly, special leave to appeal is refused. 

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application for special leave.

AT 9.44 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED