WADJ v MIMIA [2004] HCATrans 423 (27 October 2004)

--

WADJ v MIMIA [2004] HCATrans 423 (27 October 2004)

Last Updated: 4 November 2004

[2004] HCATrans 423

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Perth No P17 of 2003

B e t w e e n -

WADJ

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

McHUGH J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT PERTH ON WEDNESDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2004, AT 3.57 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J: Call this matter outside the Court, please.

COURT OFFICER: No appearances, your Honour.

McHUGH J: Thank you. In this matter there is no appearance for the applicant and the matter is to be dealt with on the papers. The Court is now in a position to give a judgment in the matter.

This is an application for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Federal Court dismissing the applicant’s appeal to that court from the Federal Magistrates Court. The applicant, who claimed to be a stateless Palestinian, arrived in Australia with his wife and three sons from Syria without visas on 23 August 2000. His application for a protection visa was refused by a delegate of the respondent. That decision was affirmed on review by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 13 December 2001.

The applicant argues that he was entitled to, but was in some unspecified way denied, the benefit of Article 1D of the Convention relating to the status of refugees. It provides as follows:

This Convention shall not apply to persons who are at present receiving from organs or agencies of the United Nations other than the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees protection or assistance.

When such protection or assistance has ceased for any reason, without the position of such persons being definitively settled in accordance with the relevant resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, these persons shall ipso facto be entitled to the benefits of this Convention.

The argument is misconceived. The Tribunal and the courts below all considered the applicant’s application on its merits and upon the basis that, if he had a well-founded fear of persecution, he should be granted a protection visa.

His application failed because the Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s claims as credible. No error on the part of the Tribunal or the courts below has been demonstrated. The application must be dismissed with costs.

The Court will now adjourn until 9.15 am tomorrow.

AT 4.01 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED