SZDEM & Ors v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 470

[2005] HCATrans 470

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S119 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZDEM

First Applicant

SZDEN

Second Applicant

SZDEO

Third Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON MONDAY, 1 AUGUST 2005, AT 3.05 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

GUMMOW J:   The applicants are citizens of India.  The first applicant claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution from members of a terrorist organisation seeking to intimidate him into assisting them. The remaining applicants’ visa applications were dependent upon that of the first applicant.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the first applicant a protection visa.  The Tribunal rejected the first applicant’s key factual claims due to internal inconsistencies and due to conflict with independent country information.  The Tribunal was unable to be satisfied on the material before it that the first applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution should he return to India.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. As the amended application had failed sufficiently to particularise the applicant’s claims of jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrate ordered the applicant to file a further amended application within a specified time. The Federal Magistrate further ordered that if that order was not complied with the respondent Minister was entitled to move the Court for an order in Chambers dismissing the application for non-compliance without further reference to the applicant. The applicant failed to file a further amended application within the specified time and on the motion of the respondent the proceedings were dismissed pursuant to the Federal Magistrates Court Rules. An application was made to the Federal Court for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal. The applicant sought to explain the delay but the application was dismissed by Stone J as having, in any event, virtually no chance of success.

The written case filed by the applicant appears to be a pro forma document which raises no grounds for the grant of special leave.  In these circumstances an appeal to this Court from the orders of the Federal Court would have no prospect of success.  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 the application for special leave.  I publish the disposition signed by Kirby J and myself.

AT 3.08 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED