SZAUA v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 543

[2005] HCATrans 543

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S144 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZAUA

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 8.59 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   This is an application for special leave to appeal against the decision of Bennett J of the Federal Court, given on 14 March 2005.  Her Honour dismissed an appeal against the decision of Lloyd‑Jones FM, dismissing an application for review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal given on 22 May 2003.  The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate to reject the applicant’s application for a protection visa.

The applicant is a citizen of India and a Muslim.  He claims to fear persecution for reason of his religion, and his association with the banned Student Islamic Movement of India.  While the Tribunal accepted his evidence in relation to an incident in September 2001 where the police took the applicant into custody without warrant and beat him, it found that this action was part of the enforcement of the law designed to protect the general welfare of the State.  The Tribunal also accepted that the Police had demanded money from the applicant but found that this was an unrelated criminal matter and not in connection with his religious or political affiliations.  While these conclusions may be questionable, they do not amount to decisions that are so irrational that no rational tribunal could have made them.  They do not, therefore, amount to jurisdictional error.  So long as the applicant’s complaints are confined to a disagreement with the factual conclusions drawn by the Tribunal, there is no justification for a grant of special leave to appeal to this Court.

The application for special leave is pro forma in character.  It relies on Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966; 190 ALR 601, but without any factual basis. It further alleges actual bias on the part of the Tribunal, and jurisdictional error by the Tribunal, the Federal Court and the Full Federal Court through their reliance upon “agency reports”. In the absence of any particularisation of these allegations, the submissions cannot be seen as anything other than an embarrassment to the Court. Generic submissions of this nature will not assist applicants in their efforts to obtain a grant of special leave to appeal to this Court. There is nothing in the decisions of the Tribunal or the Courts below to suggest that they contained any error of law. Accordingly, the application for special leave must be refused.

The application for special leave is dismissed.

Under the power conferred by r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application is dismissed.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 8.59 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED