SZDMF v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 629 (29 August 2005)

--

SZDMF v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 629 (29 August 2005)

Last Updated: 5 September 2005

[2005] HCATrans 629

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S176 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZDMF

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 MONDAY, 29 AUGUST 2005, AT 9.35 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J: The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He is an Ahmadi Muslim. He claims to fear persecution by reason of his membership of that religious minority. He arrived in Australia on 9 July 1997 and lodged an application for a protection visa on 21 August 1997. On 15 September 1999, the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. On 22 December 2004, the Federal Magistrates Court dismissed an appeal against that decision. A further appeal was dismissed by the Full Federal Court on 7 April 2005. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the decision of the Full Federal Court.

The applicant alleges that the Tribunal’s decision was infected by jurisdictional error in the form of bias and failure to properly take into account his evidence about the persecution of Ahmadi Muslims in Bangladesh. These allegations are not supported by the reasons of the Tribunal. It is evident that the Tribunal engaged in consideration of the applicant’s evidence but concluded that he was not a credible witness and that he had “significantly exaggerated or fabricated aspects of his experiences in his country of origin with a view to advancing his claims as to refugee status”: SZDMF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 381 (unreported).

In essence, the applicant is aggrieved by the Tribunal’s findings of fact. But those findings were open to the Tribunal to make, and it is not the role of this Court to disturb them. As this application for special leave to appeal does not raise any question of law, it must be dismissed.

The application for special leave to appeal 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 9.35 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED