SZGBU v MIMA & Anor [2007] HCATrans 349 (1 August 2007)

Last Updated: 21 August 2007

[2007] HCATrans 349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S408 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZGBU

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL 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, 1 AUGUST 2007, AT 9.11 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J: The applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He arrived in Australia in February 2000 and applied for a protection visa, claiming to be a "refugee" within the Refugees Convention and thus entitled to protection under Australian law.

The applicant's claim was rejected by a delegate of the Minister. He sought review before the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Tribunal made an initial decision adverse to the applicant. This was set aside on appeal to the Federal Magistrates Court, and the matter remitted to the Tribunal.

A differently constituted Tribunal recounted the applicant's claim to fear persecution on political and religious grounds, based on the fact that he was a practising Hindu in Bangladesh, a predominantly Muslim country. The Tribunal concluded that there were many inconsistencies in the evidence of the applicant. Whilst accepting that Hindus in Bangladesh suffer certain difficulties, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution on the bases that he asserted. It also found to be unpersuasive the applicant's contention that he had suffered persecution because of his active membership of the Jatiya Party. The Tribunal noted that the applicant displayed an ignorance of that party and that his account of his membership of it was unconvincing, given that one of its planks was the intention to introduce Shariah law in Bangladesh, a policy potentially harmful to Hindus.

The applicant again sought judicial review in the Federal Magistrates Court. Smith FM, in August 2006, rejected the application, the grounds of which included allegations of bias, bad faith, failure to consider a claim based on membership of a particular social group, and breach of s 424A(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

On appeal to the Federal Court, the applicant's contentions were considered by Emmett J, exercising the appellate jurisdiction of that court. His Honour could discover no error on the part of Smith FM. Because the applicant's complaints were substantially addressed to the alleged errors of the Tribunal, Emmett J was prepared to treat the claim of jurisdictional error as being that the Federal Magistrate had failed to detect such error on the part of the Tribunal and to require its correction.

Because the applicant has been unrepresented at all levels of these proceedings, we have carefully considered the record and the applicant's written case. He has not advanced any questions of law that would justify the grant of special leave to appeal to this Court. His submissions of a breach of the requirements of natural justice and of s 424A of the Act are not reasonably arguable. The applicant has failed to demonstrate any ground for doubting the correctness of the reasons of Emmett J and of his conclusion and judgment. The application for special leave must therefore be refused.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, his application has been dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules. Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application and I publish the disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 9.13 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED