SZBPO v MIMA

[2007] HCATrans 8

[2007] HCATrans 008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S201 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZBPO

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 9.39 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  He arrived in Australia in February 2003 and promptly applied for a protection visa, claiming that he was entitled to protection as a “refugee” under the Refugees Convention and Protocol. 

The applicant’s claim asserted that, although he was a Sunni Muslim, he had joined the minority Ahmadiyya Jamat religious sect and suffered attacks and violence because of his religious beliefs.

A delegate of the Minister rejected the application.  The Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dismissed his application for review of this decision.  The Tribunal was influenced by the fact that a statutory declaration filed as part of the applicant’s claim asserted that the applicant was an Imam of the sect, whereas, in oral evidence before the Tribunal, he denied that to be so.  The Tribunal noted other differences between his oral testimony and the claims made in his statutory declaration.  The Tribunal rejected the suggestion that there was any real chance of persecution on a Convention ground if the applicant were to return to Bangladesh.  It noted that he had left Bangladesh on many occasions without hindrance.  It also had regard to country information about the treatment of Ahmadiyyas in Bangladesh.

The applicant sought judicial review by the Federal Magistrates Court. Federal Magistrate Driver refused relief. Specifically, he rejected complaints that the Tribunal had failed to comply with the requirements of ss 424A and 425 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), and any relevant common law rules of procedural fairness.

An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia was heard by Stone J on 23 May 2006 and dismissed.  No error of law or jurisdiction was discerned.

The application for special leave to appeal to this Court repeats the complaints of non-compliance with the Act, and of the rules of procedural fairness generally. We are not persuaded that there is any substance in these complaints or that the application would enjoy reasonable prospects of success if special leave were granted.

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 9.41 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED