SZAIZ v MIMIA

[2005] HCATrans 262

[2005] HCATrans 262

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S302 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

SZAIZ

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 27 APRIL 2005, AT 1.49 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J:   The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh.  He applied for a protection visa in Australia on the basis of persecution for reasons of his Hindu religion.  On 20 November 2002 the Refugee Review Tribunal dismissed that application.  The Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court both subsequently affirmed that decision.

The applicant claims that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error by rejecting his claim, by concluding that Hindus in general did not suffer persecution in Bangladesh sufficient to found a Convention claim, and by finding that the applicant could relocate to another city within Bangladesh in order to escape any local problems he was experiencing.

In reaching these conclusions, the Tribunal relied on extensive documentary evidence.  Hely J in the Federal Court held that these findings were open to the Tribunal.  In reaching its conclusions, the Tribunal was entitled to accept or reject the evidence before it.  The fact that it rejected certain evidence favourable to the applicant did not suggest that it had acted in bad faith.  His Honour rejected the applicant’s claim that the Tribunal was unresponsive to the applicant’s submissions.  The Tribunal’s conclusion that the incidents of violence prior to the elections in 2001 had now subsided was also open to it to make, and did not disclose any error of law.

The applicant’s submissions have been fully considered in the tribunal and courts below.  None of those decisions manifest any error of law.  Accordingly, an appeal would have no prospect of success, and the application must be dismissed.

Under the power conferred by rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application.  I publish our joint reasons.

AT 1.49 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED