SZDWI v MIMIA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 388

[2006] HCATrans 388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S488 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZDWI

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS 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 THURSDAY, 3 AUGUST 2006, AT 9.32 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a citizen of Nepal who at one stage was a communist.  When he recanted his political beliefs he became, he claimed, the victim of violent Maoist activity. 

The respondent refused the application for a protection visa. That refusal was confirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) on the basis that the applicant’s claims were fabricated.  Various reasons for that conclusion were plausibly stated by the Tribunal and need no repetition here.  The applicant then sought a review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court.  The Federal Magistrate was unable to discern any jurisdictional or like errors on the part of the Tribunal.  The Federal Magistrate also dealt with a submission by the applicant that the Tribunal’s pattern of questioning of the applicant gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.  The Federal Magistrate concluded, after an examination of the transcript, that there was no foundation for any apprehension of bias.

The applicant appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court, the jurisdiction of which was exercised by a single judge of that Court, who also was unable to discern any error or bias on the part of the Tribunal. 

The applicant has identified no question of law or jurisdiction which would warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.  The application for special leave should therefore be refused.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, the 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 this application. I publish the disposition signed by Callinan J and myself.

AT 9.34 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED