SZAPB v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 354

[2005] HCATrans 354

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S343 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

SZAPB

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 THURSDAY, 26 MAY 2005, AT 1.49 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J:   The applicant (on behalf of himself and his family) seeks special leave to appeal against the decision of a judge of the Federal Court dismissing an appeal from a Federal Magistrate who upheld the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal declining the grant of a protection visa to him.

The applicant is a Bangladesh citizen of Muslim religion and his wife is Ahmadiyya.  For some years, he had worked at the Bangladesh High Commission in Canberra as a chauffeur.  He claims that he was overworked at the High Commission, that his claims of overwork were dismissed by the High Commission, that the law is not enforced in Bangladesh, and that he fears for his safety if he were to return there.  These claims were considered by the Refugee Review Tribunal which referred to the fact that he was given the opportunity of serving in diplomatic missions overseas on two separate occasions indicating that he was well regarded by the authorities and that despite his Indian and Pakistani origins, was viewed as a Bangladesh citizen in every respect.  The Tribunal was of the view that his claims were not made out.

The applicant was unable to demonstrate any error on the part of the Tribunal or the Federal Magistrate who reviewed the decision of the Tribunal and his application in this Court does not disclose any jurisdictional or other error on the part of the Federal Magistrate and the Federal Court to which he appealed.  Accordingly, his application must be dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application for special leave falls to be dealt with in accordance with rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application. I publish that disposition.

AT 1.51 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED