MZXLW v MIAC & Anor [2008] HCATrans 16 (6 February 2008)

Last Updated: 12 February 2008

[2008] HCATrans 016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M73 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

MZXLW

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 6 FEBRUARY 2008, AT 9.25 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka. On 2 May 2005 a delegate of the first respondent refused his application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to be a member of the United National Party ("the UNP") and that, as a result of his political affiliations, he had been assaulted by political rivals and subject to assassination attempts and ongoing threats. The Tribunal's first decision was set aside by consent and the application remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal. On the day of the tribunal hearing, the applicant left before the hearing could commence and the Tribunal made its decision in his absence, pursuant to s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal accepted that the appellant was involved with the UNP but was not satisfied that he had ever been threatened or suffered harm as a result of his involvement.

On 27 March 2007 Riley FM dismissed an application for review of the Tribunal's decision. Her Honour held that the Tribunal had complied with its obligation to invite the applicant to the hearing and was entitled to proceed in his absence. The Tribunal had not breached s 424A of the Act, nor had it failed to consider each of the applicant's claims and give adequate reasons for its decision.

Middleton J dismissed the applicant's appeal to the Federal Court on 4 June 2007. His Honour found that, in light of the factual findings made by the Federal Magistrate, the Tribunal did not commit error in exercising its discretion to proceed in the circumstances.

No error has been demonstrated in the Tribunal's decision to proceed pursuant to s 426A. The applicant has not identified any questions of law that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal 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 9.25 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED