SZEWS v MIMIA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 85

[2007] HCATrans 085

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S88 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZEWS

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 1 MARCH 2007, AT 9.19 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a Sikh from Punjab and an Indian national.  He says that he was a member of the All Indian Sikh Students Federation ("the Federation"), which is perceived by the Indian authorities to be associated with a Sikh terrorist group ("the KFC") and, on account of these matters, was frequently arrested and detained.  He was refused a permanent visa by a delegate of the respondent.

On a review of this refusal, the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") accepted the applicant's claim of membership of the Federation and a degree of maltreatment, falling short of persecution, by the authorities because of it.  The Tribunal was also of the view, however, that there were inconsistencies in the applicant's account, and further, that the situation in the Punjab has improved considerably since the applicant's arrival in Australia.

The decision of the Tribunal has already been the subject of judicial review proceedings, which failed, in the Federal Court of Australia pursuant to section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Notwithstanding that, the applicant has pursued and argued claims in the Federal Magistrates Court and in the Federal Court, that the Tribunal's decision was infected by errors, including errors of jurisdiction, requiring intervention by each of those courts. These applications failed. He now wishes to renew the argument in this Court by an appeal to it.

The application now before the Court is for special leave to enable him to do so.  Special leave could only be granted if there could be discerned errors of the kind which both the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court have said were not made.  We are of the opinion that the propounded errors have not been made out and are not reasonably arguable.  Accordingly the application to this Court must be dismissed.  The actual orders which the applicant seeks leave to appeal from represent a refusal of the Federal Court to extend time for bringing a second challenge.  This fact, and the discretionary nature of the order so made, merely compound the hopelessness of the application now made to this Court.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application for special leave 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 now publish that disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 9.22 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED