SZAXP v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 486

[2005] HCATrans 486

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S96 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZAXP

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GLEESON CJ
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 4 AUGUST 2005, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GLEESON CJ:   The applicant appears to be a citizen of Bangladesh.  He arrived in Australia in 2001 and claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds that he was involved in the activities of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“the BNP”) and that he is a Rohingya Muslim of Burmese ethnicity.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The Tribunal found that the applicant was a citizen of Bangladesh, a conclusion which he disputes.  The Tribunal also accepted that the applicant was an officeholder in the BNP student wing and that he supported the BNP candidate in the 1991 and 1996 national elections.  However, the Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claim that his being forced to pay bribes to conduct his business of importing goods from Burma was somehow discriminatory or persecutory.  Nor did the Tribunal accept his claim that he was wanted by the police in Ukhia, where he lived from 1972 to 1997.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court.  He submitted, amongst other things, that he was denied procedural fairness by the Tribunal as a result of its having failed to make inquiries of the Bangladesh High Commission concerning his citizenship status.  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 (Conti J) was dismissed.

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.

AT 9.33 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED