SZDJA v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 804 (6 October 2005)

--

SZDJA v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 804 (6 October 2005)

Last Updated: 19 October 2005

[2005] HCATrans 804

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S472 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

SZDJA

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 9.39 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant is a citizen of India. He claims to be entitled to refugee status by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution because he was privy to improper conversations and witnessed several illegal transactions while in the employ of the former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The applicant claims that the government and opposition want to force him to give evidence against the Chief Minister, while members of both the government and opposition will threaten him in order to prevent him giving such evidence.

The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal made adverse findings in respect of the applicant’s credibility, noting that the applicant changed his statement to claim that the reason he left India was that he provided files of his former employee, the former Chief Minister, to one of her political opponents.

The applicant sought review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Court, from where the proceedings were transferred by Sackville J to the Federal Magistrates Court. On his behalf the applicant’s advisers entered into consent orders for the dismissal of his application and an order in that regard was made. Subsequently, the applicant filed a draft order nisi and affidavit in this Court. The matter was remitted to the Federal Court, where Emmett J refused the application for an order nisi. The applicant then sought further review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Magistrates Court. That proceeding was dismissed as an abuse of the Court’s process. An application to the Federal Court (Jacobson J) for an extension of time to file and serve an appeal against that decision was dismissed for want of an appearance by the applicant.

We have reviewed the applicant’s written case and the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court. There are no prospects of success in any appeal against the decision of Jacobson J. 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 9.41 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED