SZARC v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 264 (27 April 2005)

--

SZARC v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 264 (27 April 2005)

Last Updated: 11 May 2005

[2005] HCATrans 264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S40 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZARC

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 27 APRIL 2005, AT 1.50 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J: The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He arrived in Australia on 19 August 2000 and lodged an application for a protection visa on 28 September 2000. On 16 February 2001 a delegate for the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs refused to grant the visa. The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed that decision on 29 November 2002. On 28 June 2004, the Federal Court dismissed an appeal against that decision.

The applicant submits that the Tribunal’s decision was attended by jurisdictional error and that he was denied procedural fairness. He claims that the Tribunal did not take all relevant information into account and that the decision was affected by actual bias. Madgwick J in the Federal Court correctly held that there was nothing in the Tribunal’s reasons to support the applicant’s claims, and that the appeal to that Court had no prospect of success.

The application is out of time. There is nothing in the draft notice of appeal or summary of argument to suggest that either the Tribunal or the Federal Court erred in their findings. As was the case in the Federal Court proceedings, it is difficult to see any correlation between the facts of this case and the applicant’s written submissions. An appeal in this matter would have no prospect of success. Accordingly, the application must be dismissed.

Under the power conferred by rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application. I publish our joint reasons.

AT 1.50 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED