SZDZV v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 689

[2005] HCATrans 689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S205 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZDZV

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 9.30 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a national of Fiji of Indian ethnicity.  He claims to be entitled to refugee status because of a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of his race.  In particular, the applicant claims to have been assaulted in Fiji by members of the Fijian military following a report made by him about their illegal activities.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The Tribunal made adverse findings concerning the credibility of the applicant.  Significant portions of the applicant’s oral evidence before the Tribunal contradicted his written claims.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. Upon finding that there was no indication of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision, the Court held that the Tribunal’s decision was a privative clause decision and upheld the Minister’s objection to competency based on the applicant’s failure to file an application for review within the 28 days allowed by s 477(1A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant appealed from this decision to the Federal Court (Stone J). In that Court, the Minister conceded that the Tribunal’s decision was not a privative clause decision, but submitted that that decision was not infected by jurisdictional error. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed.

We have reviewed the applicant’s written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court.  We find 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.  I publish that disposition signed by Kirby J and myself.

AT 9.32 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED