SZDMZ v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 480 (4 August 2005)

--

SZDMZ v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 480 (4 August 2005)

Last Updated: 24 August 2005

[2005] HCATrans 480

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S84 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZDMZ

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GLEESON CJ
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 4 AUGUST 2005, AT 9.20 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GLEESON CJ: The applicant is a national of Thailand who arrived in Australia in 2003. She claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of her membership of the Muslim Welfare group and her religious observance and activities.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising that it had considered all the material before it relating to the application but was unable to make a favourable decision on that alone. The Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a hearing for the purpose of giving oral evidence, and advised her that were she not to attend the hearing, the Tribunal might make a decision without further notice. This correspondence was sent both to the applicant’s post office box mailing address and to the residential address she had shown on her application for review. No response was received from the applicant, who claims that she had changed her address without telling the Tribunal.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. That Court dismissed her application on the basis that the applicant had not shown jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. The Federal Court (Hely J) thereafter dismissed her application for an extension of time within which to appeal. His Honour added that if she were permitted to prosecute an appeal, the appeal, seeking merits review, would have no prospects of success.

There are no prospects of success in demonstrating any error by Hely J. Accordingly, special leave to appeal is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application for special leave.

AT 9.22 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED