SZBQV & Ors v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 485

[2005] HCATrans 485

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S393 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

SZBQV

First Applicant

SZBRC

Second Applicant

SZBRD

Third Applicant

SZBDE

Fourth Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GLEESON CJ
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 4 AUGUST 2005, AT 9.29 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

The applicants are husband and wife and two children.  They are citizens of Bangladesh.  They claim to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution on the ground that the applicant husband is a prominent and active member of the Awami League.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas.  The Tribunal accepted that the applicant husband had been arrested and interrogated in 1996 and that he had suffered violence at the hands of his political opponents in the period surrounding the 2001 election.  However, the Tribunal relied on independent country information which suggested that the situation in Bangladesh had improved and stabilised.

The applicants sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court.  The Registrar made a self-executing order that the applicant husband file and serve before 8 April 2004 a further amended application for judicial review clearly identifying the grounds of jurisdictional error relied upon, where failure to comply would result in the dismissal of the application.  The Court refused to exercise its discretion to set aside the orders of the Registrar.  Subsequently, leave to appeal was refused by the Federal Court (Jacobson J), which found that, in any event, an amended application filed without leave did not raise any arguable case of jurisdictional error by the Tribunal.

We have reviewed the applicants’ written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court.  It is apparent from their written case that the applicants seek to obtain a merits review of the Tribunal’s

decision.  There are insufficient prospects of success in any appeal to this Court from the decision of the Federal Court.  Accordingly, special leave to appeal is refused. 

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application for special leave.

AT 9.31 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED