SZDSN v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 699

[2005] HCATrans 699

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S245 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZDSN

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 THURSDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2005, AT 9.50 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of the Ukraine.  He arrived in Australia in April 2000 on a sports visa in order to attend a spear fishing competition and claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well‑founded fear of persecution on grounds of his involvement in the Ukrainian Freedom Party and his political opinions.  In particular, he claims to have been detained and beaten during presidential elections in the Ukraine for campaigning against President Kuchma.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The Tribunal was not satisfied either that the applicant was a political activist or a journalist or that he had been detained or beaten.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court.  However, although he complied with directions that he file and serve an amended application setting out the full particulars and grounds to be relied upon on or before 21 October 2001, he did not file written submissions five days prior to the hearing date, as ordered.  He also failed to attend the final hearing.  His application was therefore dismissed and found not to have disclosed any indication of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.  An application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from this decision was dismissed by Madgwick J in the Federal Court.  His Honour noted that the Federal Court would be quick to excuse such a short delay in the case of an unrepresented litigant; however, to do so in the circumstances of this case would be futile.  We agree.

We have reviewed the applicant’s written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court.  These materials do not reveal a question appropriate for the grant of special leave.  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.  I publish that disposition signed by Kirby J and myself.

The Court will adjourn until 10.00 am.

AT 9.52 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED