SZASB & Anor v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 800 (6 October 2005)

--

SZASB & Anor v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 800 (6 October 2005)

Last Updated: 19 October 2005

[2005] HCATrans 800

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S454 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

SZASB

First Applicant

SZASC

Second 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, 6 OCTOBER 2005, AT 9.30 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicants are husband and wife and citizens of Bangladesh. The applicant husband claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution by five elements. These include: Seven Star, a terrorist group associated with the Awami League; the applicant husband’s former boss in a land company, who had defaulted on repaying a large loan made by the applicant husband’s cousin; a former member of parliament for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, who had been involved in commercial dealings with the applicant husband; the applicant husband’s ex-wife and her family; and the applicant husband’s cousin, who had made the above-mentioned loan.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas. The Tribunal found that none of the reasons given by the applicant husband as to why each element would want to harm him was political, or related to the applicant husband’s actual or imputed political opinions. Rather, the reasons were personal or commercial.

The applicants sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court, arguing, among other things, that the Tribunal should independently have investigated the veracity of their claims and that its decision was infected by actual bias. Giving detailed reasons, the Court held that the applicants had failed to establish any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. An appeal to the Federal Court (Moore J), in which the applicants raised grounds of review beyond those agitated before the Federal Magistrates Court, was subsequently dismissed. His Honour emphasised that the decision of the Tribunal turned upon its conclusion that any harm to the applicants was not Convention related.

We have reviewed the applicants’ 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. I publish the disposition signed by Kirby J and myself.

AT 9.33 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED