SZBCA v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 627

[2005] HCATrans 627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S163 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZBCA

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 CANBERRA ON MONDAY, 29 AUGUST 2005, AT 9.34 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh.  He claims to fear persecution by reason of his membership of a particular social group, namely active homosexuals in Bangladesh.  He arrived in Australia on 31 August 2000 and lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. 

In a decision given on 9 July 2003, the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa.  On 9 December 2004, the Federal Magistrates Court dismissed an appeal against that decision.  On 24 March 2005 the Federal Court dismissed an appeal against that decision.  The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the decision of the Federal Court.

The Tribunal considered the evidence submitted by the applicant to support his claim to be homosexual, and to have suffered persecution as a result of his membership of that particular social group.  The Tribunal concluded that “[t]he applicant’s evidence in relation to most aspects of his claims was vague, generalised, lacked specific detail, and was inconsistent and unconvincing.”  The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant is a homosexual. 

In the proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court, counsel for the applicant raised several aspects of the Tribunal’s judgment that could have amounted to jurisdictional error.  However, after careful consideration, Driver FM rejected these arguments.  The Federal Court upheld Driver FM’s conclusion and stated that “the allegation of failure to consider the case depends entirely upon the appellant’s dissatisfaction with the Tribunal’s factual finding.”

In the absence of an error of law, there is no basis for this Court to disturb the Tribunal’s findings and conclusions.  This application raises no question of law and must be dismissed.

The application for special leave to appeal 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 9.34 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED