SZBQV & Ors v MIMA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 638

[2006] HCATrans 638

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S147 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZBQV

First Applicant

SZBRC

Second Applicant

SZBRD

Third Applicant

SZBRE

Fourth 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

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 15 NOVEMBER 2006, AT 9.28 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

GUMMOW J:   The applicants are a husband and wife and their two children.  They are citizens of Bangladesh and arrived in Australia on 22 August 2002.  On 7 November 2002 their application for protection visas was refused by a delegate of the first respondent.  The applicant husband claimed to fear persecution on the basis of his membership of the Awami League, an opposition party in Bangladesh.  He sought a protection visa, relying on s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1956 (“the Act”).  His wife and children claimed visas on the basis of s 36(2)(b) of the Act, which enables the spouse and dependents of a claimant under s 36(2)(a) also to claim protection visas.

The Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) found that the first‑named applicant may have experienced politically‑related violence, but that the political situation in Bangladesh had subsided, and that State protection would be available to the applicant and his family were they to return.  Thus, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had no well‑founded fear of persecution which would justify the grant of a protection visa.

The applicant filed a series of applications in the Federal Magistrates Court alleging jurisdictional error by the Tribunal.  When these claims failed, the applicant appealed to the Federal Court.  On 22 September 2004, Jacobson J dismissed the Federal Court appeal, ruling that there had been no jurisdictional error.  In this Court, Gleeson CJ and Gummow J then refused an application for special leave to appeal on 4 August 2005.

The present application was considered in the Federal Magistrates Court by Barnes FM on 17 January 2006.  Her Honour was satisfied that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process.

In the Federal Court on 3 May 2006, Conti J found that the applicants had failed to identify any arguable ground of appeal, and instead claimed, in substance, merits review.  The applicants did not identify any error in the decision of Barnes FM that the proceedings were an abuse of process.

The applicant in his submissions to this Court has not addressed the issue that the previous proceedings constituted an abuse of process.  Nor has he identified an arguable point of law that would warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.  Special leave is accordingly refused.

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 9.31 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED