SZAZN v MIMIA

[2006] HCATrans 16

[2006] HCATrans 016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S174 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZAZN

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 3 FEBRUARY 2006, AT 10.39 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

SZAZN appeared in person.

MS M.N. ALLARS:   May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent.  (instructed by Sparke Helmore)

SHAHADATH ALI, affirmed as interpreter:

GUMMOW J:   We will hear first from you, Ms Allars.

MS ALLARS:   Your Honours, the respondent’s case is that there is no point of principle raised so as to justify special leave being granted.  His Honour Justice Moore was correct to hold that there was no denial of procedural fairness and no breach of section 424A of the Migration Act.  In the leave application the applicant raises two additional issues which were not raised below.  One is that there was no evidence for the Tribunal’s decision; the other is that the Tribunal failed to follow procedures required by the Migration Act.

The respondent says there was no argument put and there is no proper basis for establishing these grounds.  If leave were granted and if the matter were remitted, the applicant would not be in a position to establish the Muin ground of denial of procedural fairness because the evidence required to establish that was not in place before the Federal Magistrate.  Your Honours, the Tribunal’s decision turned chiefly on issues of credibility.  Those are the submissions of the respondent, your Honours.

GUMMOW J:   Yes.  Of course, we have read the written submissions as well.  Thank you, Ms Allars.  What does the applicant wish to say?

SZAZN (through interpreter):   I have nothing to say.

GUMMOW J:   Thank you.

As just indicated, in addition to hearing this morning what Ms Allars has said, we have of course fully considered the written submissions by both sides.  Our conclusion of this is that this case turned below on its own facts, that the applicant is seeking to reagitate the merits of his case and no point of principle, either of law or of jurisdiction, is raised by the application.  There are no prospects of success upon the two new issues raised in this Court and just mentioned by Ms Allars.  Accordingly, the application fails and must be dismissed with costs.

Thank you, Mr Translator.

AT 10.44 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED