Applicant S1004/2003 v MIMIA [2006] HCATrans 285 (13 June 2006)

--

Applicant S1004/2003 v MIMIA [2006] HCATrans 285 (13 June 2006)

Last Updated: 28 June 2006

[2006] HCATrans 285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S577 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT S1004/2003

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW ACJ
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 13 JUNE 2006, AT 9.20 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW ACJ: The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who claims to fear political and religious persecution. His claim for a protection visa was rejected by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the applicant was not a credible witness and that aspects of his claims were vague, implausible, internally inconsistent and inconsistent with independent evidence. Although the Tribunal accepted that the applicant had experienced some discrimination and violence in the past, it found that those experiences were not serious enough to amount to persecution and that the chance of the applicant again experiencing such communal violence would be remote. Consequently the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution should he return to Bangladesh.

The applicant applied to the Federal Court for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in June 2000. Whitlam J dismissed that application by consent. The applicant was also involved in the proceedings in this Court reported as Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30; (2002) 76 ALJR 966; 190 ALR 601. Although those proceedings were discontinued another application of the same nature was instituted and again dismissed in April 2004. The applicant again applied to the Federal Magistrates Court for judicial review, but that Court dismissed the application as precluded by the principles of res judicata and issue estoppel. The Federal Magistrate was also unable to identify any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.

An appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Gyles J.

The applicant applies out of time for special leave to appeal against that decision. Having regard to the history of the proceedings there would be no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court from the Federal Court. The application for extension of time is refused and the application for special leave is dismissed.

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 9.22 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED