SZAOT v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 520

[2005] HCATrans 520

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S474 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

SZAOT

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 8.53 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The Refugee Review Tribunal rejected the claim of the applicant, a Bangladeshi, for a protection visa on the grounds that the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant is an Ahmadiya and that, even if the applicant did hold Ahmadi beliefs, that Ahmadis in Bangladesh are likely to suffer discrimination that amounts to persecution.

The Federal Magistrates Court held that the factual findings that the Tribunal reached were open to the Tribunal. The Court also held that the Tribunal’s failure to notify the applicant of the legal authorities on which its reasons depended did not constitute a breach of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) and that, even if it was a breach, that breach would not constitute jurisdictional error and would fall within the privative clause provisions of s 474(1) of the Act.

The Federal Court dismissed an appeal on the ground that s 424A(3), which specifies that s 424A “does not apply to information: (a) that is not specifically about the applicant”, did not require the Tribunal to give the applicant information about the Australian law that governs the application or country information. The Court also held that there was no breach of natural justice or failure to accord procedural fairness, that the factual findings that the Tribunal reached were open to the Tribunal and that the Tribunal did not fall into jurisdictional error.

The applicant’s special leave application complained of breaches of the rules of natural justice, jurisdictional error, a failure to take into account relevant considerations, procedural errors and errors of law.  There is no ground for doubting the correctness of the decision of the Federal Court.

An appeal would have no prospect of success.  The application must be dismissed.

Under the power conferred by 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 8.54 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED