SZBAQ v MIMA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 559

[2006] HCATrans 559

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S110 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZBAQ

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

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 5 OCTOBER 2006, AT 9.34 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who claims to fear persecution on the basis of his political affiliations and involvement with the Jatiya Party.  His claim for a protection visa was rejected by a delegate of the first respondent on 8 January 2002.  The Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) found that many of the applicant’s claims were vague and general and, whilst he had a limited association with the Jatiya Party, his involvement was not extensive enough for him to have a real chance of persecution.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court.  This was dismissed by Baumann FM on 9 September 2004.  An appeal from that decision was dismissed in the Federal Court by Hely J, and the applicant was refused special leave in this Court on 4 August 2005 by Gleeson CJ and Gummow J.

The applicant then filed on 30 August 2005 a further application seeking review of the same Tribunal decision. Lloyd-Jones FM ruled that the Tribunal’s decision was a privative clause decision and an application had not been filed within 28 days of notification of the decision, as required by s 477(1A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The first respondent’s notice of objection to competency was upheld and the proceeding dismissed. The decision of Lloyd-Jones FM was upheld in the Federal Court by Conti J on 17 March 2006.

The applicant’s written case relies upon assertions of denial of procedural fairness by the Tribunal and has not addressed the threshold issues of res judicata, estoppel and abuse of process that arise through his second appeal from the Tribunal’s decision.  Nor has he advanced any question of law that would justify an appeal to this Court.  There would be no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court from the Federal Court.  Special leave is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.  I publish the disposition signed by Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.36 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED