SZDUA v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 1018 (15 December 2005)

--

SZDUA v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 1018 (15 December 2005)

Last Updated: 6 January 2006

[2005] HCATrans 1018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S391 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZDUA

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 15 DECEMBER 2005, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who claims to fear political persecution. His claim for a protection visa was rejected by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal was based upon findings as to the credibility of the applicant’s evidence. The Tribunal also found that a lack of documentary evidence supporting the applicant’s assertions that “false cases” had been filed against him indicated that those assertions were false.

The applicant’s application for judicial review was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates Court as demonstrating no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. An appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Madgwick J. His Honour stressed that the rejection of the applicant’s arguments respecting procedural fairness and breach of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) followed from the fact that the Tribunal had rejected the applicant’s credibility “root and branch”. His Honour also found that although the Tribunal’s conclusion respecting the credibility of the applicant’s claims that “false cases” had been filed against him entailed certain factual assumptions, and those assumptions could constitute “information” within the meaning of s 424A(1), the Tribunal had raised the matter with the applicant and the applicant had acquiesced in those assumptions. Thus, even treating the Tribunal’s assumptions as “information”, they could be regarded as information the applicant “gave” the Tribunal.

We have considered the applicant’s written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court. There would be insufficient prospects of success on any appeal to this Court from the Federal Court to warrant a grant of special leave. Accordingly the application for 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 Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.33 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED