SZAZP v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 231

[2007] HCATrans 231

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S231 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZAZP

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 23 MAY 2007 AT 9.50 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh.  He arrived in Australia on 26 April 2001 and on 2 May 2001 lodged an application for a protection visa.  On 10 May 2001 his application was refused by a delegate of the respondent.

The applicant claimed that he was an active member, and a friend of one of the leaders, of the Bangladesh Freedom Party ("the BFP").  He claimed that, as a result, he suffered harassment and injury, and that false charges were filed against him for which a warrant was issued.  The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") did not accept that the applicant was a member of the BFP, or that he had a well‑founded fear of persecution based on his political beliefs, or for any other Convention reason.  By reference to country information, the Tribunal also formed the view that, if the applicant were subject to false charges, he would be able to rely on the independent judicial system of Bangladesh to provide him with a fair trial.  The Tribunal did not regard the applicant as a reliable or credible witness.  It was concerned that his claims and documentation were not genuine.

The applicant unsuccessfully sought review of the Tribunal's decision by the Federal Magistrates Court (Lloyd-Jones FM) on 29 October 2004.  That application was dismissed.  On 24 June 2005 the Federal Court (Emmett J) dismissed an application for review of the decision of the Federal Magistrate.  An application for special leave to appeal to this Court was refused (Gummow and Kirby JJ) on 14 November 2005.

The applicant then filed an application seeking to have set aside the order of the Federal Magistrates Court.  That application was inevitably dismissed.  The applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Federal Court.  That application too was dismissed.  There was no error on the part of the Federal Magistrates Court and any appeal could have no prospects of success.  The applicant filed a further application for special leave to appeal to this Court on 7 July 2006.  He seeks to argue that the Federal Court erred in failing to find error of law on the part of the Federal Magistrate, and that his case was on all fours with the decision of this Court in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966.

In neither the Federal Magistrates Court nor the Federal Court was the applicant able to demonstrate any error of law or jurisdictional error justifying the intervention of either of those courts.  The applicant raises no question of law and does not deal with the threshold hurdle, namely that his application constitutes an abuse of process.  An appeal to this Court would have no prospects of success.  The application must, therefore, be dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application for special leave falls to be dealt with in accordance with rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application. I publish that disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 9.53 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED