SZELL v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 632

[2005] HCATrans 632

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S185 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZELL

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON MONDAY, 29 AUGUST 2005, AT 9.35 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The applicant is a citizen of Nepal.  He claims to fear persecution as a result of his membership of the BNP party.  On 14 November 2002 the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed a decision of the Minister’s delegate not to grant the applicant a protection visa.  On 23 December 2002 the applicant commenced proceedings in this Court seeking an order nisi for the issue of constitutional writs in relation to the Tribunal’s decision.  The matter was remitted to the Federal Court where, after the applicant’s failure to comply with that Court’s orders as to the further progress of the matter, the application for the order nisi was dismissed.  The applicant then purported to appeal against the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court.  Lloyd-Jones FM summarily dismissed the proceedings on the grounds that they were an abuse of the processes of that Court.  The applicant’s appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Full Federal Court on 6 April 2005.  The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal against that decision of the Federal Court.

The Full Federal Court held that “[t]he only matters upon which [the applicant] has relied impermissibly invite the Court to embark upon a merits review of the [Tribunal’s] decision.”  SZELL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 457. The applicant has repeated many of the same arguments in the present application. Those arguments must be rejected for the same reasons. The applicant also alleges that the Full Court’s judgment was affected by numerous contradictions. Having carefully read that Court’s judgment, it is clear that that allegation is incorrect. The application raises no arguable question of law. Accordingly, special leave to appeal must be refused.

The application for special leave to appeal is dismissed.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application is dismissed.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 9.36 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED