SZAPT v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 269

[2005] HCATrans 269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S370 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

SZAPT

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 CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 27 APRIL 2005, AT 1.51 PM

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 three grounds.  Firstly, the Tribunal considered that the applicant’s claims as to threats and attacks made by police and political parties were not credible.  Secondly, even if the Tribunal accepted that the applicant was wanted by Bangladeshi authorities for a false allegation, the country information as to the Bangladeshi judiciary satisfied the Tribunal that the applicant would receive justice.  Thirdly, if the applicant genuinely felt in fear of persecution, then he could re‑locate outside Dhaka and the Lakshmipur districts.

The Federal Magistrates Court held that the factual findings that the Tribunal reached were open to the Tribunal and that the Tribunal had not shown actual bias or acted in bad faith.

The Federal Court dismissed an appeal on the ground that the Tribunal’s decision did not involve any jurisdictional error and was not contrary to common law principles of natural justice.  Also, the Federal Magistrate did not err in refusing to adjourn the proceedings to enable the applicant to obtain legal advice.

The applicant’s special leave application complained of the Tribunal’s failure to take into account relevant considerations, error of law and procedural unfairness.  The applicant also relied on Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966; 190 ALR 601, but did not demonstrate the necessary factual basis. 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 rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 1.51 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED