Applicant S1011 of 2003 v MIMIA [2006] HCATrans 124 (9 March 2006)

--

Applicant S1011 of 2003 v MIMIA [2006] HCATrans 124 (9 March 2006)

Last Updated: 30 March 2006

[2006] HCATrans 124

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S208 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT S1011 OF 2003

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 9 MARCH 2006, AT 9.28 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J: The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Wilcox J) exercising the appellate jurisdiction of that Court. By those orders, Wilcox J dismissed the applicant’s appeal against orders of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Refugee Review Tribunal held the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of religion. The Shia are a Muslim minority in Pakistan and the applicant claimed that his fear of persecution was related to his father’s status in the Shia community and that the police or Sunni extremists would harm him if he returned to Pakistan.

In the applicant’s written submissions in support of the application for special leave it is contended that the Refugee Review Tribunal based its decision on the fact that the applicant’s relatives in Pakistan have not been harmed, a finding for which there was no evidence, giving rise therefore to a jurisdictional error. The applicant also submitted that the Refugee Review Tribunal failed to consider an implied claim of fear of persecution by having to move around frequently to avoid physical harm.

The Refugee Review Tribunal’s finding of fact that the applicant’s status as the eldest son of a deceased Shia leader did not provide a sufficient basis for a well-founded fear of persecution renders this application an unsuitable vehicle through which to explore the questions sought to be raised by the applicant in this matter. The decision of Wilcox J is not attended by doubt.

Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs. I publish that disposition.

AT 9.30 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED