SZATG v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 690

[2005] HCATrans 690

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S503 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

SZATG

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, 8 SEPTEMBER 2005, AT 9.32 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh.  He claims to be entitled to refugee status because of a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of the Awami League on grounds of his involvement in the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. 

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 concerning the credibility of the applicant, particularly in respect of the authenticity of documents tendered by the applicant to support his claim that he had been imprisoned on false charges in Bangladesh.  This finding was made in reliance upon independent country information about Bangladesh concerning the regularity there of documentary fraud.  The Tribunal concluded that the geographical focus of the applicant’s claims of persecution was the district of Dhaka and noted that the applicant and his family could have relocated peacefully to another part of Bangladesh.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. Detailed reasons were given in that Court. It was held that there was (a) no breach of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and (b) no denial of procedural fairness in the Tribunal’s treatment of, and reliance upon, the above-described country information in questioning the authenticity of the documents tendered by the applicant. The Court also held that the Tribunal was not obliged to make findings about reasonably foreseeable socio‑economic changes in Bangladesh. An appeal to the Federal Court (Hely J) was thereafter dismissed. His Honour gave comprehensive reasons for that outcome.

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.  I publish the disposition signed by Kirby J and myself.

AT 9.34 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED