SZFME v MIAC & Anor [2008] HCATrans 28 (6 February 2008)

Last Updated: 12 February 2008

[2008] HCATrans 028

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S276 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZFME

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 9.48 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh who claims to fear persecution because of his alleged political opinion and affiliation with the Awami League. The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister to refuse the applicant's application for a protection visa. Although the Tribunal accepted that the applicant had some involvement with the Awami League, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real chance the applicant would be harmed because of that involvement or because of the other matters he put to the Tribunal. The Tribunal also found that it would be reasonable for the applicant to live elsewhere in Bangladesh in safety. It followed that the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would be subjected to serious harm amounting to persecution for a Convention reason if he were to return to Bangladesh.

An application for judicial review by the Federal Magistrates Court was dismissed by Nicholls FM on 2 February 2007. The Court found that the Tribunal's findings were untainted by jurisdictional error. An appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Edmonds J on 10 May 2007. His Honour rejected the applicant's grounds of appeal and observed that the Tribunal's decision had two alternative bases. The second basis, that the applicant could relocate such that Australia did not owe him protection obligations, was unchallenged before his Honour.

The application for special leave to appeal does not advance any question of law that would justify the intervention of this Court. There are no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court. 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 9.50 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED