SZEOX v MIMIA & Anor [2007] HCATrans 11 (31 January 2007)

Last Updated: 5 February 2007

[2007] HCATrans 011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S211 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZEOX

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

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 31 JANUARY 2007, AT 9.46 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J: The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He arrived in Australia on 26 April 2001 and promptly made an application for a protection visa. He claimed that he was entitled to protection as a “refugee” within the Refugees Convention and Protocol. His claim was based on an assertion of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political belief, and membership of the Freedom Party in Bangladesh. He claimed that he had been subjected to false accusations by political opponents.

When the application was rejected by a delegate of the Minister, the applicant sought review by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). In August 2004, the Tribunal: rejected the application; confirmed the decision of the delegate; did not accept the applicant’s evidence of any significant political involvement, or that he had been forced into hiding and concluded that he would not face any risk of persecution were he to return to Bangladesh.

The applicant then sought an order of review from the Federal Magistrates Court. He asserted that the Tribunal: had acted in bad faith; was biased; had denied him natural justice and had made erroneous factual findings and failed to investigate his claims.

Federal Magistrate Lloyd-Jones dismissed all of the applicant’s arguments of legal or jurisdictional error. He separately considered the operation of s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”). He was unconvinced that any jurisdictional error had been established in relation to the meaning or application of the Act or otherwise on that ground.

The applicant appealed to the Federal Court of Australia. The jurisdiction of that Court was exercised by Conti J who, on 31 May 2006, dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

We have carefully considered the applicant’s written case in support of his application for special leave. Essentially, it suggests that Conti J had failed to discharge the responsibilities of the Federal Court and had dismissed the appeal simply because the applicant’s lawyer had withdrawn from the case. This is not the correct way to read his Honour’s reasons. They deal adequately with the applicant’s complaints. The order of the Federal Court dismissing the appeal is not attended by doubt. The applicant would enjoy no prospects of success in this Court.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application falls to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

I publish that disposition signed by Callinan J and myself.

AT 9.49 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED