SZFXY v MIMIA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 391

[2006] HCATrans 391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S493 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZFXY

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

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 3 AUGUST 2006, AT 1.07 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   This applicant is the wife of the adult applicant in SZFYM & Anor v Minister for Immigration Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (Matter No S483/05).  She claims to be a citizen of Bangladesh who has previously resided in India.  She asserts that she would be at risk of persecution in India because of her inter-caste marriage, and equally at risk in Bangladesh because she is a Hindu.

The first respondent refused to issue her a visa.  The Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), from which she sought a review of the respondent’s decision, found her to be a witness lacking in credibility.  Her supporting documents were not authentic and her claims were generalised, unconvincing and lacking in the sorts of details that she reasonably could be expected to know.

As with the applicant’s husband’s proceedings, a second proceeding was brought in the Federal Magistrates Court before Mowbray FM.  On 7 August 2002 the applicant applied to the Federal Court seeking judicial review of the Tribunal’s decisions.  On 9 September 2002 the application was referred to the Federal Magistrates Court, and on 6 December 2002 the Magistrate (Driver FM) dismissed the application after having heard from the applicant who was represented by counsel.  On 24 December 2002 the applicant lodged a notice of appeal in the Federal Court and on 27 August 2003 Hill J dismissed the appeal.  On 23 September 2003 the applicant sought special leave to appeal in this Court and on 28 April 2004 the application was deemed abandoned.  On 14 April 2004 the applicant filed a fresh application for special leave and on 3 March 2005 a Court comprised of McHugh and Heydon JJ dismissed her and her husband’s special leave applications with costs. 

The applicant then commenced fresh proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court which were found to be incompetent for the same reason as those in SZFYM’s proceedings.  The applicant then sought leave appeal to the Federal Court.  There it was held that the judgment of the Federal Magistrate was not attended by any such doubt as to warrant a grant of leave to appeal. 

The applicant has failed to identify any jurisdictional or like error on the part of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court or the Federal Court to justify a grant of special leave to this Court.  Accordingly the application for special leave to appeal must be dismissed.

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 publish this disposition signed by Callinan J and myself.

AT 1.10 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED