SZBJZ v MIMIA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 397

[2006] HCATrans 397

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S503 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZBJZ

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS 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 THURSDAY, 3 AUGUST 2006, AT 1.17 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   This applicant, who is a citizen of Bangladesh, claims to be a member Jatiya Party (“the Party”) and to have been its joint secretary in Rajshahi in 1988.  He claims that the Party became the target of other parties and that he has been attacked and adversely affected in carrying out his business of selling food.  He says that on one occasion he was almost beaten to death.

After coming to Australia in December 2002 the applicant applied for a protection visa.  His application was refused by the first respondent.  The applicant sought a review of that refusal by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) which did not accept that the applicant had been politically active in Bangladesh.  One reason for this conclusion was that he has been unable to demonstrate any convincing degree of knowledge of the Party, its objects and activities.  The Tribunal was also influenced by the fact that the applicant had between 1997 and the hearing travelled back and forth to Australia and European countries on many occasions during which he had had an opportunity to, but had not sought, protection.

As to the claim that when he had returned to Bangladesh on two occasions he had feared to stay at his home but had stayed at an hotel, the Tribunal found that the documentary evidence he relied on, hotel receipts, failed to corroborate the claim.  Finally, on the applicant’s own account, his political activities had ceased in 1991. 

In the Federal Magistrates Court the applicant made a baseless claim of bias against the Tribunal and asserted that it had misunderstood his case and the test for the determination of refugee status.  The Federal Magistrate rejected all his arguments.

The applicant then appealed to the Federal Court, alleging four errors in the decisions of the Federal Magistrate Court and the Tribunal.  They were that the Tribunal failed to disclose how it interpreted the available country information, that the Tribunal was biased, that the Tribunal failed properly to understand the definition of “refugee”, and that the Tribunal failed to consider the current situation in Bangladesh.  The Court (Moore J) held that the applicant had failed to make good on any of these propositions.

The applicant, in his written case in this Court, has been unable to demonstrate any jurisdictional or other error in the Federal Magistrates Court or in the Federal Court that would warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.  In those circumstances his application must be refused.

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

AT 1.20 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED