MZXGB v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship & Anor [2008] HCATrans 100 (29 February 2008)

Last Updated: 4 March 2008

[2008] HCATrans 100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M43 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

MZXGB

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

MZXGC

Third Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 29 FEBRUARY 2008, AT 9.26 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka. On 2 August 2005 a delegate of the first respondent refused his application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to be a member of the UNP who operated a business providing supplies to customers including the Sri Lankan Army. He claimed that one of his drivers had been attacked by members of a Tamil organisation, and that he had been extorted, threatened and assaulted by Tamils. He also claimed to have been threatened on account of his UNP membership. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had been attacked by Tamils on one occasion and received subsequent threats. However, the incidents and threats were found to be criminally motivated rather than Convention-related. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not suffered serious harm and would not have a real chance of suffering such harm in the future; the application was dismissed.

On 31 October 2006 McInnis FM dismissed the application for review of the Tribunal's decision. His Honour rejected the applicant's contention that the Tribunal had breached s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in relying upon two damaging anonymous letters and certain country information. Further, his Honour held that the Tribunal had not fallen into jurisdictional error by failing to consider the applicant's membership of a particular social group, as the existence of any such social group had not been claimed before the Tribunal. There was no breach of natural justice and no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision.

Lander J dismissed the applicant's appeal to the Federal Court on 23 March 2007. His Honour agreed with McInnis FM's approach to s 424A. His Honour found that the Tribunal had not failed to respond to the social group issue: rather, it had never been part of the applicant's case.

The applicant has not identified any questions of law that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal. There was no jurisdictional error or breach of natural justice in the decision of the Tribunal, and there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision below.

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

AT 9.28 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED