SZFYK v MIAC & Anor

[2008] HCATrans 41

[2008] HCATrans 041

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S250 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZFYK

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 7 FEBRUARY 2008, AT 9.16 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a national of Bangladesh.  He arrived in Australia in February 2000 and promptly made an application for a protection visa.  He claimed to be entitled to it as a "refugee" within the Refugees Convention and Protocol, given effect by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act").

A delegate of the Minister refused the application.  The delegate's decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  Although upheld by the Federal Magistrates Court, the Tribunal's decision was overturned by the Federal Court of Australia in February 2004 and remitted to be redetermined by a differently constituted Tribunal.

The second Tribunal considered the applicant's claim to persecution on political grounds based allegedly on his membership of, and work for, the Jatiya Party.  It was the applicant's case that he had been targeted by members of the Awami League because he had worked for his uncle who was a candidate for that Party. 

The second Tribunal expressed doubts as to the applicant's credibility.  It pointed out that he had a "remarkable lack of knowledge" about the Jatiya Party and was unable to give any detailed evidence about his uncle's alleged activities with it.  The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had been truthful about his involvement in political activities.  It rejected the application.

A request for judicial review of the second Tribunal's determination by the Federal Magistrates Court failed. No jurisdictional error was found by Turner FM. A second appeal to the Federal Court (where, on this occasion, the appellate jurisdiction was exercised by Edmonds J) failed. Claims of bias, want of proper process and breach of s 424A of the Act were all rejected for reasons that indicate no appealable error.

The appellant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court essentially to reargue the factual merits of his claim to persecution.  To grant special leave would not involve a correct exercise of this Court's role.  An appeal would not enjoy reasonable prospects of success.  The application must be refused.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application has been dealt with in accordance with rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules.  In accordance with rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.  I publish that disposition signed by Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.18 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED