SZBPF v MIMIA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 227

[2007] HCATrans 227

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S230 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZBPF

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 WEDNESDAY, 23 MAY 2007 AT 9.37 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a citizen of Fiji, and is of Indian ethnicity.  He arrived in Australia on 12 May 2002 and applied for a protection visa on 31 May 2002.  His application was refused by a delegate of the first respondent on 20 December 2002.

The applicant claimed that he had suffered persecution by reason of his ethnicity.  The alleged persecution consisted of harassment by indigenous Fijians, threats to his life and robbery.  The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), in rejecting his claims, relied on country information that indicated that Indian ethnicity alone would not, in Fiji, give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution.  The applicant had been asked to, but did not, provide details of his claims.  Nor did he attend a hearing conducted by the Tribunal despite being notified by it that it was unable to make a decision favourable to him on the material before it.

On 25 July 2005 the Federal Magistrates Court (Raphael FM) dismissed an application for review of the Tribunal's decision.  The applicant then unsuccessfully appealed to the Federal Court (Graham J).  He next applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court.  On 9 March 2006 the Court (Hayne and Crennan JJ) dismissed that application.  The applicant then applied to the Federal Magistrates Court (Scarlett FM) which on 24 April 2006 held that the application was an abuse of process and dismissed it.  The applicant was also restrained from seeking a review of the Tribunal's decision without the leave of the Court.  The applicant then sought leave to appeal against the decision of the Federal Magistrate.  The Federal Court (Moore J) held that the Federal Magistrate had not erred and that the application had no prospects of success. 

Once more, the applicant filed an application for special leave to appeal to this Court on 7 July 2006.  He argues that the Federal Court erred in failing to find an error of law in the decision of the Federal Magistrate, that his case was governed by the decisions of this Court in Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal (2002) 76 ALJR 966 and that the Tribunal failed to follow proper procedures. Even if the application were competent and not an abuse of process, it could not succeed.

Any appeal to this Court would have no prospect of success.  The application must be dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application for special leave 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 now publish that disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 9.40 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED