SZHLV v MIMA

[2007] HCATrans 566

[2007] HCATrans 566

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S9 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZHLV

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 3 OCTOBER 2007, AT 9.35 AM  

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who arrived in Australia on 26 April 2001.  On 10 May 2001 a delegate of the first respondent refused the applicant's application for a protection visa.  The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") did not accept the applicant's claim to fear persecution on political grounds and, noting that much of his evidence was implausible, affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.

On 25 October 2006 Scarlett FM dismissed the application for review of the delegate of the first respondent's decision and found that the application was an abuse of process.  The applicant had commenced proceedings in respect of the same subject matter three times, having previously sought review of the Tribunal's decision.  An application for special leave to appeal a decision of the Federal Court with regard to the Tribunal's decision was dismissed by Gleeson CJ and Gummow J on 26 May 2005.

In the Federal Court, Moore J dismissed the appeal.  His Honour stated that it was not apparent that the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court was attended by any doubt, and his Honour noted that the decision of that Court was made against a backdrop of litigation in the Federal Magistrates Court, the Federal Court and the High Court.  Moore J upheld the Federal Magistrate's decision that the attempt to institute proceedings with respect to the delegate rather than the Tribunal's decision was an abuse of process.

The applicant's draft notice of appeal does not address the judgment of Moore J and is without merit.  The applicant's case before this Court discloses no question of law that would justify a grant of special leave, and shows no cause to doubt the correctness of the decisions below.  There are no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court.  Special leave 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 Justice Kiefel and myself.

AT 9.36 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED