SZBMD v MIMIA

[2006] HCATrans 295

[2006] HCATrans 295

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S603 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZBMD

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

GUMMOW ACJ
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 13 JUNE 2006, AT 9.36 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW ACJ:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who claims to fear persecution as a member of the BNP and on other grounds.  The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision by a delegate of the first respondent to refuse a protection visa.  It found that the applicant’s claims were supported by unsatisfactory evidence; that a BNP member was no longer at risk; and that any local difficulties could be avoided by relocation.

The Federal Magistrates Court (Driver FM) rejected an application for judicial review on the ground that no jurisdictional error was shown.  The Federal Court of Australia (Wilcox J) agreed and dismissed an appeal.

The applicant’s application for special leave to appeal to this Court raises no arguable jurisdictional error, except possibly for a failure to comply with s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant contends that he was not told that the Tribunal would be relying on similarities between the applicant’s original statement and statements made by other visa applicants who had the same adviser. He raised this point with Wilcox J, who said he could not evaluate it in the absence of a transcript or tape recording of the Tribunal hearing. Wilcox J said the point had not been raised before Driver FM; the applicant said it had been, and pointed to par 4 of Driver FM’s reasons for judgment. That paragraph does not support the applicant, for it states that the applicant was not able to point to any information not disclosed to him by the Tribunal which should have been. Further, pages 10-11 of the Tribunal’s reasons appear to record that the point was raised by the Tribunal with the applicant. No injustice has been done to the applicant and there are insufficient prospects of success in an appeal. The application is dismissed.

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 9.38 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED