SZBDL v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 13

[2007] HCATrans 013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S228 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZBDL

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, 31 JANUARY 2007, AT 9.52 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  He was one of three seamen who jumped ship in Sydney in July 2001.  He subsequently claimed to be entitled to a protection visa.  That claim was rejected by a delegate of the Minister in April 2002.  He claimed to fear persecution because he was a member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim minority group.

The applicant sought review of the rejection of his claim by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  The Tribunal found his claim to be inconsistent, contradictory, vague and sensationalist.  The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was “an impostor” and not an Ahmadiyya Muslim at all.  It concluded that he would not face a real chance of persecution if he were returned to Bangladesh.

In August 2003 the applicant applied to the Federal Magistrates Court. In February 2005, that Magistrates Court dismissed his application. He then unsuccessfully appealed to the Federal Court of Australia. An application was then made for special leave to appeal to this Court. On 20 December 2005, this Court, constituted by Gummow and Heydon JJ, dismissed the application (see [2005] HCATrans 1025). Notwithstanding that, the applicant lodged a fresh application in the Federal Magistrates Court. It provoked an application by the Minister for summary dismissal of it. The Minister asserted, correctly, that the applicant had not, as required by s 486D(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), disclosed all prior review proceedings in respect of the decision under review.

The Federal Magistrate dismissed the applicant’s application; directing that no further application for review of the original decision of the Tribunal be accepted for filing without leave of the Court, and ordered the applicant pay the Minister’s costs.

Undiscouraged, the applicant once again sought leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Australia.  Moore J, exercising the applicable powers of that Court, dismissed the application and again ordered the applicant to pay costs.  Now the applicant seeks to come back to this Court for a second time.  His application repeats complaints about the original determinations and proceedings.  It makes immaterial references, that have become all too familiar, to the decision of this Court in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966 - without demonstrating the factual or other relevance of that case to his.

The applicant’s case is doomed to fail.  It must be dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application 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 the application. I publish that disposition signed by Callinan J and myself.

AT 9.55 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED