SZHSB v MIAC & Anor [2008] HCATrans 25 (6 February 2008)

Last Updated: 12 February 2008

[2008] HCATrans 025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S271 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZHSB

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 9.43 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant is a citizen of India. He arrived in Australia on 27 February 2005 and on 5 July 2005 a delegate of the first respondent refused his application for a protection visa. The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") rejected the application for review of the decision of the delegate of the first respondent on 20 October 2005. The Tribunal did not accept the applicant's claim to have been persecuted by Muslim extremists, noting that the applicant had twice returned to India from Malaysia and that Hindus formed an overwhelming majority of the population in parts of India to which the applicant could reasonably be expected to relocate.

In the Federal Magistrates Court Nicholls FM refused the application. There was no substance to the applicant's complaint that the Tribunal did not adequately consider all aspects of his claims, and the Tribunal had complied with the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). There was no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision.

In the Federal Court, the applicant was unable to identify any error of law vitiating the reasoning of the Federal Magistrate or the Tribunal. Ryan J dismissed his appeal on 15 May 2007.

The first respondent has filed an affidavit in this Court indicating that the applicant departed Australia on 25 August 2007 and the utility of this application for special leave to appeal is doubtful. Further, the applicant's draft notice of appeal does not articulate any legal grounds and no jurisdictional error is revealed in the decisions of the courts below. Special leave is refused.

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

AT 9.45 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED