SZBPA v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 521

[2005] HCATrans 521

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S86 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZBPA

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 SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 5 AUGUST 2005, AT 8.54 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The Refugee Review Tribunal rejected the claim of the applicant, an Indian national, for a protection visa on the grounds that the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had been attacked in India for reason of political opinion due to his membership of the Congress Party.  The Tribunal concluded that, in the absence of evidence from the applicant, who did not appear before the Tribunal, the attacks were a result of the applicant’s personal relationship with a member of Congress.

The Federal Magistrates Court granted the respondent’s application for summary dismissal of the applicant’s judicial review proceedings on the ground that the Tribunal did not fall into jurisdictional error or breach the rules of natural justice. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal was entitled to exercise its discretion under s 426A(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to make a decision on the review without taking any further action to allow or enable the applicant to appear before it.

The Federal Court dismissed an appeal on the ground that the applicant’s application, draft notice of appeal and affidavit in support identified no appealable error from the decision of the Federal Magistrate.

The applicant’s special leave application complained of procedural error and error of law.  The applicant also relied on Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966; 190 ALR 601, but did not demonstrate the necessary factual basis. The application raises no question of law that would justify the grant of special leave to appeal. Nor is there reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Federal Court.

An appeal would have no prospect of success.  The application must be dismissed.

Under the power conferred by r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 8.54 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED