SZGIZ v MIMIA & Anor [2006] HCATrans 371 (2 August 2006)

--

SZGIZ v MIMIA & Anor [2006] HCATrans 371 (2 August 2006)

Last Updated: 4 August 2006

[2006] HCATrans 371

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S31 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZGIZ

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 2 AUGUST 2006, AT 9.53 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J: The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, arrived in Australia in 1996, and made application for a protection visa in 2005. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Stone J) exercising the appellate jurisdiction of that Court. By those orders, Stone 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 application for special leave is made out of time, and the applicant seeks an order that compliance with r 41.02.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 be dispensed with. Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10.

In the Federal Court, Stone J concluded that the grounds raised by the applicant did not demonstrate any error in the decisions of the Federal Magistrate or the Refugee Review Tribunal. Here, the applicant’s written submissions in support of the application raise no arguable grounds for the grant of special leave, or grounds which would support an order dispensing with compliance of r 41.02.1.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 9.55 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED