SZEAC v MIMIA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 288

[2006] HCATrans 288

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S584 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZEAC

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

GUMMOW ACJ
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 13 JUNE 2006, AT 9.26 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW ACJ:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who claims to fear political persecution from the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Awami League because of his association with the Jatiya Party. The decision of the delegate of the respondent to refuse his application for a protection visa was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal in the absence of the applicant pursuant to s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal described the applicant’s account of his political activities with the JP as “vague and generalised” and did not accept that he was ever a member or leader of that party. It concluded that there was no real chance that the applicant would suffer persecution were he to return to Bangladesh.

The applicant’s application for judicial review on the ground that proceeding in his absence constituted a denial of procedural fairness was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates Court.  Emmett FM was satisfied that the applicant had received the invitation to attend the hearing and was aware the Tribunal could proceed in his absence, and held that the Tribunal was entitled to proceed with the review without giving the applicant a further opportunity to attend as he had taken no steps to communicate to the Tribunal that he would not be attending.  An appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Madgwick J.

The applicant’s summary of argument relies upon vague assertions of non-compliance with s 424A of the Migration Act and denial of procedural fairness by the Tribunal, bearing only the most tenuous of connections to the original basis of his application for judicial review.  There would be no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court from the Federal Court.  Special leave 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 Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.28 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED