SZECK v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 691 (8 September 2005)

--

SZECK v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 691 (8 September 2005)

Last Updated: 20 September 2005

[2005] HCATrans 691

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S251 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZECK

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2005, AT 9.34 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution at the hands of the Awami League on grounds of his involvement in the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“the BNP”).

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claims (a) that his involvement in the BNP was sufficiently prominent that his Awami League opponents, if any, would seek him beyond the district of Dhaka, (b) that his exposure to the “scam” under which he came to Australia was a Convention-related reason for leaving Bangladesh, and (c) that there was a false case against the applicant alleging extortion by him.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court, arguing that the Tribunal’s decision was coloured either by bias or the reasonable apprehension of bias. Upon finding that there was no indication of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision, the Court held that the Tribunal’s decision was a privative clause decision and upheld the Minister’s objection to competency based on the applicant’s failure to file an application for review within the 28 days allowed by s 477(1A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). On the footing that this decision was interlocutory, leave to appeal to the Federal Court was thereafter denied by Madgwick J.

We have reviewed the applicant’s written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and Madgwick J in the Federal Court. There are no prospects of success in any appeal to this 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. I publish that disposition signed by Kirby J and myself.

AT 9.36 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED