QAAK of 2004 v MIMIA [2006] HCATrans 222 (10 May 2006)

--

QAAK of 2004 v MIMIA [2006] HCATrans 222 (10 May 2006)

Last Updated: 19 May 2006

[2006] HCATrans 222

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B103 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

QAAK OF 2004

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
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 10 MAY 2006, AT 9.23 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant left Romania in 1988, when it was ruled by President Ceausescu. In 1989 the regime changed after a revolution. The appellant lived in the United States of America until February 1997. He was there convicted of second degree arson and sentenced to two years’ probation. He left the United States voluntarily to avoid deportation and came to Australia.

A delegate of the respondent refused to grant the applicant a protection visa because of the conviction. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal set aside that decision on the ground that the appellant had been wrongly convicted and remitted the matter for reconsideration.

Another delegate of the respondent refused to grant a protection visa because the delegate considered that the applicant’s claimed fear of persecution on political and religious grounds was not genuine or well-founded.

The Refugee Review Tribunal declined to set aside that decision. It found that the applicant had not lost Romanian citizenship. It did not accept that escapees from the Ceausescu regime were harmed by the present regime. It did not accept that the applicant, as a Baptist, would suffer persecution. And it found that various human rights abuses in Romania were not for Convention reasons.

An application for review to the Federal Court of Australia (Nicholson J) was rejected on the ground that the applicant’s challenges to the Tribunal were merits-based and that no jurisdictional error had been shown.

The Full Federal Court (Kiefel, Jacobson and Greenwood JJ) dismissed an appeal. For the most part its reasoning corresponded with that of Nicholson J. It also rejected, correctly, other arguments not advanced to the Tribunal.

The applicant’s application for special leave to appeal to this Court identifies no question either suitable for consideration by this Court or having sufficient prospects of success to justify a grant of special leave.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave. I publish the disposition signed by Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.25 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED