SZAUU v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 482 (4 August 2005)

--

SZAUU v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 482 (4 August 2005)

Last Updated: 24 August 2005

[2005] HCATrans 482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S76 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZAUU

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 9.23 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GLEESON CJ: The applicant claims to be a national of Bangladesh. He claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution on the ground that he was an office holder in the Bangladeshi National Party (“the BNP”) and was therefore targeted by the BNP’s main rival, the Awami League (“the AL”).

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. Before the Tribunal, the applicant claimed to have been attacked by members of AL and beaten on the back of the head with a hockey stick. The Tribunal rejected this on the basis of medical evidence provided to it by the applicant, showing that his skull, scalp and brain were normal and unaffected by past injury. The Tribunal made further findings adverse to the applicant’s credit.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. He submitted that the Tribunal was not entitled to come to the conclusion at which it arrived on the medical evidence before it, and that it had failed to consider his claims (a) that his political adversaries had filed false cases against him and (b) that he had been attacked on two separate occasions. The Court dismissed his application on the basis that the applicant had not shown jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. The evidence for those claims alleged not to have been considered was found by the Court to have been slight at best. The Federal Court (Madgwick J) dismissed an appeal from this decision, and it is from the decision of that Court which the applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.

We have reviewed the applicant’s written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court. There are insufficient prospects of success in any appeal to this Court from the decision of the Federal Court. 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 9.25 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED