SZICI v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 228

[2007] HCATrans 228

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S233 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZICI

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

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 23 MAY 2007 AT 9.40 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh.  He arrived in Australia on 9 September 1999 and applied for a protection visa on 14 October 1999.  A delegate of the respondent refused that application on 19 November 1999. 

The applicant claimed that he was an active member of the Bangladesh Freedom Party ("the BFP") and that, in consequence, he was subjected to violence and false charges against him by Bangladeshi authorities.  He produced documents which he contended supported these claims.  The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") was of the view that the documents were forgeries, and that otherwise the applicant had not provided relevant details of his claims.  As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the claims of persecution were fabricated.  This conclusion was reinforced by the applicant's uninformed and incorrect statements about the conduct of elections in Bangladesh in which he claimed to have been a key campaigner.  He also had very little knowledge of the leaders and ideology of the BFP.  The decision of the delegate of the respondent to reject the application was affirmed.

The applicant unsuccessfully sought judicial review by the Federal Magistrates Court (Lloyd-Jones FM). In May 2005 the Federal Court (Madgwick J) dismissed an appeal against that decision. The applicant sought special leave to appeal to this Court. That application was dismissed by the Court (Gummow and Heydon JJ) on 15 December 2005. The applicant then filed an application for an order to show cause seeking review of the delegate's decision in the Federal Magistrates Court, and on 6 March 2006 that Court (Raphael FM) held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the application by virtue of section 476(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and that the application in any event was an abuse of process, the applicant having already exhausted every form of review available to him. The application was dismissed. An order was also made restraining the applicant from filing any application seeking judicial review of the delegate's or the Tribunal's decision. The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Federal Court against that decision. On 14 June 2006 the Federal Court (Moore J) refused to grant leave, holding that there was no error on the part of the Federal Magistrate and that any appeal would be doomed to fail.

In its application to this Court for special leave to appeal, the applicant seeks to argue that the Federal Court erred in failing to find an error of law, that the delegate did not follow proper procedures and that the Federal Court erred in not allowing the applicant's arguments.  The contentions are unarguable.

An appeal to this Court would have no prospects of success.  The application must, therefore, 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 that disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 9.43 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED