SZBAC v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 532 (5 August 2005)

--

SZBAC v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 532 (5 August 2005)

Last Updated: 25 August 2005

[2005] HCATrans 532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S424 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

SZBAC

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 SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 5 AUGUST 2005, AT 8.56 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J: This is an application for special leave to appeal against the decision of Hill J of the Federal Court, given on 6 October 2004. His Honour dismissed an appeal against the decision of Barnes FM, given on 22 April 2004, dismissing an appeal against a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal to affirm the decision of the Minister’s delegate, to refuse the applicant’s application for a protection visa.

The applicant is a national of India and a Muslim. He claims to fear persecution on the basis of his religion and alleged association with Muslim extremists.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claims on the basis that they were fabrications. Hill J agreed with Barnes FM that nothing in the Tribunal’s reasons suggested any error of law. None of the applicant’s claims raise any question that would warrant the grant of special leave.

Hill J also considered whether leave should be granted for the applicant to argue grounds of appeal which were not argued before Barnes FM. However, his Honour concluded that there was nothing to substantiate those claims, and decided not to grant such leave. The applicant has made the same or similar claims in his present submissions. There is nothing in the Tribunal’s reasons that support those claims. They do not give rise to any special leave question.

The application for special leave is dismissed.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application is dismissed. I publish our joint reasons.

AT 8.57 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED