SZAPF v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 802

[2005] HCATrans 802

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S456 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

SZAPF

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 6 OCTOBER 2005, AT 9.35 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh.  He arrived in Australia in April 2000 and claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of his political opinions.  In particular, the applicant claims to have been involved in thwarting an attempt by an organiser in the Bangladesh Nationalist Party to rig votes in the 1996 election.  The applicant claims also to fear harm because he was a former student leader of the Freedom Party and to have been the subject of false charges filed by the former Awami League government.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The Tribunal made adverse findings in respect of the applicant’s credibility.  It found that the court documents provided by the applicant as evidence of the false charges against him filed by the Awami League government were fraudulent.  In so finding, the Tribunal relied on independent country information concerning the prevalence of document fraud in Bangladesh.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court, alleging, among other things, bias and a denial of procedural fairness.  Giving detailed reasons, the Court considered the applicant’s contention that he had been misled by correspondence from the Tribunal concerning the receipt of evidence provided by him and that, contrary to what appears in the Tribunal’s reasons, he did not concede that doubt attended the authenticity of the court documents upon which he sought to rely.  However, 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 (Moore J) was dismissed for want of prosecution.

We have reviewed the applicant’s written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court.  There are no prospects of success in any appeal to this Court from the decision of Moore J.  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.  I publish the disposition signed by Kirby J and myself.

AT 9.37 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED