SZBDA v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 626

[2005] HCATrans 626

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S152 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZBDA

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 national of India. He claims to fear persecution by reason of his membership of a particular social group, specifically, of Hindus of a very low caste.  He arrived in Australia on 26 February 2002 and lodged an application for a protection visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. 

On 20 June 2003 the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa.  On 20 January 2005, the Federal Magistrates Court dismissed an appeal against that decision.  On 10 March 2005 the Federal Court dismissed a further appeal.  The applicant did not attend the hearing on that date and sought to have those orders set aside and the case re-opened for further hearing.  Jacobson J refused that notice of motion, finding that it was unnecessary to consider whether there was an adequate explanation for the applicant’s failure to attend the hearing on 10 March 2005 because “the appeal does not raise any arguable case”.  The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the decision of Jacobson J.

The applicant claims that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error by imposing a standard of demeanour not required by the statute when it found that the applicant’s conduct was “not the kind of conduct to be reasonably expected of a person genuinely seeking protection”.  This argument cannot provide the basis for a successful appeal in light of the extensive factual findings by the Tribunal and its conclusion that the applicant’s “claims for refugee status have no substance and are complete fabrications.”  In light of the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal was entitled to come to that conclusion.  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