SZEVR & Ors v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 472

[2005] HCATrans 472

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S129 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZEVR

First Applicant

SZEVS

Second Applicant

SZEVT

Third Applicant

SZEVU

Fourth Applicant

SZEVW

Fifth Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

SZEVV

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON MONDAY, 1 AUGUST 2005, AT 3.12 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

GUMMOW J:   The applicants are husband and wife and their children.  They are citizens of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia in 2000.  The applicant husband (“the applicant”) claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of political persecution.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The Tribunal considered that the applicant’s evidence lacked credibility and that many of his claims were implausible.  The Tribunal was unable to be satisfied on the material before it that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution should he return to Bangladesh.

The applicant initially sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Court.  Wilcox J dismissed that application as exhibiting no reviewable error.  An appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court was dismissed.  The applicant sought special leave to appeal to this Court, which was refused by Kirby and Callinan JJ in June 2004.  The applicant then lodged a fresh application for judicial review in the

Federal Magistrates Court.  That Court dismissed the application as incompetent since it was lodged out of time and, in light of the previous proceedings, had no prospect of success.  The Federal Magistrate also ordered, on the motion of the respondent Minister, that no further applications be lodged in that Court by the applicant without leave of the Court.  An application for leave to appeal to the Federal Court was then refused by Jacobson J.  It is that decision from which the applicant seeks special leave to appeal.

In these circumstances there would be no prospect of success in any appeal to this Court from the decision of Jacobson J.  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 the application for special leave.  I publish the disposition signed by Kirby J and myself.

AT 3.14 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED