SZEKZ v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 538 (5 August 2005)

--

SZEKZ v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 538 (5 August 2005)

Last Updated: 25 August 2005

[2005] HCATrans 538

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S107 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZEKZ

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 8.58 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J: The Refugee Review Tribunal rejected the claim of the applicant, a Chinese national, for a protection visa because the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant’s expression of political opinion and political activities were of a kind that would have been of serious interest to the Chinese authorities.

The applicant filed an application for an order of review in the Federal Court of Australia. The Federal Court ordered that the application be dismissed with costs. The applicant filed a Notice of Appeal in the Federal Court of Australia, but then filed a Notice of Discontinuance in these proceedings. The applicant later lodged an application for judicial review in the Federal Magistrates Court and filed an amended application whose grounds of review were identical to the grounds that the applicant relied on in the earlier Federal Court proceedings. In the determination of the later application, the Federal Magistrates Court held that it would be an abuse of the Court’s process to permit the applicant to reactivate the review process. The Federal Magistrates Court dismissed the application under r 13.10(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules and ordered the applicant not to file another application seeking review of the Tribunal’s decision without leave of the Court.

Justice Branson of the Federal Court dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal from the decision of the Federal Magistrates Court on the grounds that the applicant’s appeal had no reasonable prospects of success and that the interests of justice do not require the applicant to be given another opportunity to seek review of the Tribunal’s decision.

The applicant’s special leave application complained that the Tribunal’s decision contained errors of law and took into account irrelevant considerations. The application also complained that Justice Branson’s decision did not accord the applicant “substantial justice”.

The applicant raises no ground on which to disturb the decision of Justice Branson of the Federal Court. An appeal would have no prospect of success. The application must be dismissed.

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

AT 8.58 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED