WAFZ v MIMIA

[2004] HCATrans 266

[2004] HCATrans 266

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Perth  No P103 of 2002

B e t w e e n -

WAFZ

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

McHUGH J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM PERTH BY VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

ON FRIDAY, 6 AUGUST 2004, AT 11.41 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MS L.B. PRICE:   Your Honours, I appear for the respondent.  I understand there is no representation for the applicant.  (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

McHUGH J:   Yes.  I gave a direction that the matter be dealt with on the papers, Ms Price, by reason of the fact of non‑representation.  The Court is now in a position to give its reasons in the matter.

MS PRICE:   Yes, your Honour.

McHUGH J:   The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court rejecting an appeal from a judgment of the Federal Court affirming a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal denying him a protection visa.

The applicant is an Iranian citizen, a musician.  He claimed in the Tribunal that he was persecuted and further jeopardised at the hands of Iranian authorities because of the music and songs he performed.         He sought to point to particular instances of persecution, but, as to these, the Refugee Review Tribunal was of the view that not only were the claims in conflict with the country information, but also that his accounts of them were improbable.

The Full Court dismissed his appeal on the basis that it could not interfere with this later finding which was one of fact, even if the Refugee Review Tribunal may have placed too much weight on the country information.  Furthermore, the Full Court was unwilling to interfere with the conclusion of the Refugee Review Tribunal that the applicant had not shown that he was at risk of persecution if he returned to Iran.

The proceedings below were all resolved against the applicant on the facts.  It would not be appropriate and, indeed, it is not open to this Court to interfere in relation to those.  The application must, therefore, be dismissed with costs.

AT 11.43 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED