SZAYJ v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 546

[2005] HCATrans 546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S190 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZAYJ

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 9.00 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   This is an application for special leave to appeal against the decision of Wilcox J of the Federal Court, given on 25 February 2005.  His Honour dismissed an appeal against the decision of the Barnes FM, confirming a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal.  The Tribunal affirmed a decision of the Minister’s delegate to refuse the applicant’s application for a protection visa. 

The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh.  He claims to be an activist for the BNP and to fear persecution for this reason.  Fundamental to the Tribunal’s reasons was their conclusion that they were unable to accept the main factual claims made by the applicant in relation to these activities, or to the events that he alleged had amounted to persecution.  Wilcox J agreed with Barnes FM that the substance of the applicant’s arguments before him were criticisms of the Tribunal’s findings of fact.  His Honour correctly held that, even if those criticisms were valid, they would not support a case of jurisdictional error. 

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 to suggest that the decisions of the Tribunal of the Courts below contained any error of law.  Accordingly, the application for special leave must be refused.

The application for special leave is dismissed.

Pursuant to 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 9.01 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED