1412883 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3605

1412883 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3605 (26 March 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1412883

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Fiji

MEMBER:Mara Moustafine

DATE:26 March 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Statement made on 26 March 2016 at 6:51pm

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

INTRODUCTION

1. The first-named applicant, [name] (the applicant), is a citizen of Fiji who is aged [age]. Also included in the application is his wife, [name], aged [age]. The applicants arrived in Australia [in] Mary 2010 on [temporary] visas valid for three months. They first lodged a protection visa application [in] August 2010, which was refused [in] October 2010 (the first delegate’s decision). The applicants sought review by the Tribunal (differently constituted) and the first delegate’s decision was affirmed on 22 February 2011.  In 2011 and 2012 the applicant unsuccessfully sought Ministerial Intervention. 

2. [In] October 2012 the applicants lodged another protection visa application which was determined to be invalid and the applicants then sought judicial review at the then Federal Magistrates court [in] October 2012. [In] August 2013 it was determined that the protection visa application was valid as a result of the Federal Court judgement in SZGIZ v MIAC, which found that s.48 did not prevent a person making another protection visa application on complementary protection grounds. The second delegate refused to grant the visas [in] 2014 and the applicants applied to the Tribunal for review of this decision [in] July 2014.

3. Ahead of the hearing, on 2 and 5 November 2015, the applicants’ representative provided submissions, including supporting letters from family and community members.

4. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 16 November 2015 to give evidence and present arguments.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Fijian and English languages. Their registered migration agent, who attended the hearing, represented the applicants in relation to the review.

5. The issue in this review is whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his being removed from Australia to Fiji, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm. 

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE 

6. In his protection visa application, the applicant stated that he was of Fijian ethnicity, [Christian] by belief, and worked as a pastor. He claimed that he held a political opinion against the current military government in Fiji, which he believed had undermined democracy and the rule of law. The applicant feared he would be targeted and harmed due to his political opinion against the military government and his religious background as a [Christian]. He feared he would face significant harm if he returned to Fiji because the military government continued to target and harm people holding alternative political opinions and did not tolerate dissenting political views. He said he feared that, due to his continuous stay in Australia, he would be considered to be a person holding a political opinion against the military government. He feared he would face harm from the authorities and not get adequate state protection anywhere in Fiji because the Fijian authorities were his persecutors.

7. The applicant elaborated on these claims in his statutory declaration concerning his Complementary Protection visa application dated [in] June 2014 as follows:

   a.I arrived in Australia [in] May 2010 on a [temporary] visa which had been granted for three months.

   b.After the military coup in Fiji December 2006 and in response to my concerns over many months about the increasing and apparent on­going manifest corruption of the Fijian state, and way of life caused by the latest coup, I started each Sunday around late 2009 to give voice in my church and socially to my congregation of my deep concerns on what the government was doing to us and our community.

   c.Each Sunday I gave sermons and I would increasingly remonstrate against the undermining of, and corruption Fijian rights of citizens both Indian and indigenous Fijians by the military government including their abandonment of the rule of law.

   d.I was aware that my outspokenness might be reported on but I was so aggrieved what was happening to our legal and social rights in Fiji that I felt that I had to speak out to facilitate and encourage others to do so as well as to help ferment a community-wide passive non-violent resistance to the imposition of a military government.

   e.We had noticed from time on Sundays late model motor cars travelling up and down the street near our church I started to think that they might be Fijian military or government officials keeping an eye on us and who attended my church.

   f.Many months later in early May 2010 [at] night whilst I walking down the main street of my [suburb] to return to my house which is where I live amongst [the] community, I was stopped by two imposing, very well built and well dressed men in civilian mufti; they were seated in late model stationary motor sedan. These cars are not usually found around our area. The passenger door was suddenly flung open as I was about to walk past it and partially blocked my path. One guy got out of the passenger side of the car leaving the door wide open and started questioning me. I assumed from the start and from their size and demeanour that they were some sort of Fijian officials.

   g.They asked me to the best of my recollection the following series of questions which I answered; its only now after I feel safe that I can effectively recall it.

   Q. Are you Paster [name]?
   A. Yes, Bulla (we speak in Fijian thereafter)
   Q. Is that your Church - pointing at the church?
   A. Yes, this is my church.
   Q. Do you preach here every Sunday?
   A. Yes.
   Q. What are you preaching to the people?
   A. I preach the word of god.
   Q.  What are you telling the people about what happening in the government?
   A. Saying the truth of what happening; bad leadership and corruption and its not fair on the people.

   Q. Is that what's happening!
   A . Yes, that what is happening and the leadership needs to be changed!

   At that point the tone and facial expression of the person questioning me changed and became more aggressive, intimidating and angry by leaning forward and finger waving at me saying at the same time,

   Do you know what your saying to the people is wrong!
   Nobody is allowed to speak against the government.
   Anybody who speaks against the government will be bashed-up!

   After a few minutes the driver who was still sitting in the car in the driver's seat leaned over, glared at me saying something to the man questioning me and he then immediately had a quick exchange with the driver and before he closed his passenger door said to me words to the effect "We haven't finished with you yet and we will be back!" The car accelerated off at high speed.

   h.I remember the questioning now because I became so frighten at the time that it blocked my memory when I first arrived in Australia. , I remember thinking when In was questioned that they could take me away and my [wife] would never know what happen to me; just disappeared.

   i.I did not tell my wife for about two days afterwards when she started questioning me why I was so ashen face, not eating and not sleeping. After revealing to her what happen and my concerns for our welfare and safety we agreed that I had to leave the country because it was only a matter of time before they came back. We had been for a long time hearing stories circulation of trucks arriving in the early hours and taking people away from their homes and not returning them for weeks and when they did they had reported head and body injuries.

   j.I applied for a Protection visa in 2010 after receiving information from a Fijian Pastor friend that this visa would be applicable to my wife and me. He also told me that he would help us.

   k.I apologise for the contradicting information that was presented in my Protection visa application, the reason being that I do not speak English very well and a fellow Fijian pastor here was the one who help me fill out the forms. He also helped me to fill out my RRT application but sent somebody else to accompany me to the hearing. Most importantly I was overwhelmed and nervous about my interviews and I was still stressed and concerned about what had happen to me in Fiji. I did not understand much on the nature and requirements of a Protection visa and relied upon others who said they could help.

   l.I fear the Fijian Military because they are still in power and it is a known fact that Military personnel hold senior positions in Government.

   m.As an Evangelist pastor, upon returning to Fiji, anything can happen because the Military are still in power. Freedom of open air preaching in public areas may be restricted if the Military does not approve it. If we return to Fiji my wife and I will face emotional and mental distress because we have nothing to go back to and the bond I have developed with my [child] will not only affect me but It will affect [him/her] more due to [his/her] condition.

   n.My passport is still valid. It was issued in 2008 and it is due to expire in 2018 but in the Protection Decision Record it is stated that it has expired.

8. Key points from the applicant’s evidence before the Tribunal were:

   a.He had been a pastor at [a] church in [town] from 2000 to May 2010, when he left Fiji. He also worked as [occupation] at [workplace] between 2000 and 2005 and previously at [another workplace].

   b.Apart from his sermons in the church, the applicant conducted open-air church services in public areas in which he encouraged people to pray for a change of leadership. He believes someone reported this to the military.

   c.The applicant said he did not recall when in 2009 he started preaching against the government in church or in open-air services. Asked what prompted him to start doing so almost three years after the 2006 coup, the applicant said that in 2009 people started to feel the trauma and he realised it was his duty to encourage them to pray for divine intervention and for a change in leadership.

   d.Asked for how long or how often he engaged in such anti-government preaching, the applicant said he could not remember the number of Sundays but it was ‘quite a number of times’.

   e.He later said he conducted an open-air service on just one occasion because he was coming and going to Australia. It was in 2009 in the park at [a] High School but he did not remember a specific date.

   f.The interaction with the two civilian clad men on the [evening] in May 2010 ([date] May, he thought) occurred when he went to close the church gate after the congregation left and found a car parked in the shadows outside the gate. 

   g.The applicant confirmed that the men did not harm him, but threatened to come back for him.

   h.Although the men, who were total strangers, did not identify themselves and were in civilian clothes in a [colour] car, from their tone of voice, angry approach and large build, he concluded that they were soldiers. The applicant confirmed that this was just his impression and that this was the only such incident of harassment by the military, which he encountered in Fiji.

   i.He told his wife they should leave the country for fear that the men might come back and take them away and torture or abuse them. He therefore found another pastor to take over his congregation, sold up all their [belongings] and left for Australia [in] May 2010.

   j.The applicant said he came to Australia with the intention of remaining and seeking protection. Asked why he waited for almost three months to lodge the protection visa application, just as his [temporary] visas expired, the applicant said that the [pastor] who helped him lodge the application said that as he and his wife had multiple entry visas requiring them to return to Fiji after 3 months, they should wait till the expiry date, then lodge their protection visa application.

   k.Since their arrival the applicants have been doing voluntary [work]. They are not in paid employment but live by their faith and whatever people donate.  The applicant has been entrusted to preach in the church. The applicant’s sister and [adult] [child] are Australian citizens and live here.

   l.The applicant has chosen not to involve himself in political activities since leaving Fiji because of what happened to him that [evening] in May 2010.

   m.Asked why he fears returning to Fiji now, the applicant said the recent changes in Fiji made him more afraid to return as many positions in government departments were being filled by high-ranking military. He was afraid that the military would know that he and his wife had fled to Australia and they would be subjected to the sort of treatment that happened to people in the past, including torture. He also feared returning as they had nothing to return to, as they had no property in Fiji and had sold all their [belongings]. Asked whether there were any other reasons he feared returning the applicant said no.

9. The evidence of the applicant’s wife at the hearing largely corroborated his evidence. She said her knowledge of events was based on what her husband had told her, although he did not give her the full details. The applicant’s wife said she had seen nothing to suggest that her husband had suffered any harm from the authorities in Fiji. She was afraid to return to Fiji as she did not have anything to go back to in terms of a house or property.  She also feared that, as her husband was a [pastor], the things that happened to people from other churches – like being taken to the barracks – might also happen to her. 

10. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was still claiming to fear harm in Fiji on the grounds of his [Christian] belief, given that he had not mentioned this as a claim at hearing. The applicant responded that personally, he had nothing to fear regarding the [Church] of which he was a pastor. However, he did have fear because he associated with ministers of other denominations who had gone through torture and abuse; and because the military may not distinguish between pastors and may target any pastor who might have gone against the Fiji leadership.

11. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant whether he had ever visited Australia before his most recent arrival, noting that in his protection visa application he said it was his first visit. The applicant responded vaguely that he had come to Australia on a few occasions, including for a conference, though he did not recall exact dates. Asked if he came together with his wife, the applicant said he thought they came together on one occasion.

12. In accordance with s. 424AA of the Act, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant a number of inconsistencies in his evidence, noting that these raised doubts about the applicant’s truthfulness and general credibility:

    a.In his statutory declaration and in his evidence to the Tribunal, the applicant said he first engaged in criticism of the government in his church sermons in 2009. However, he told the Department in his interview that he started doing this straight after 2006 coup.

    b.In his evidence to the Tribunal, the applicant said there was only one incident in which he was harassed by the military – in May 2010. However, in the course of his first protection visa application, he made no mention of this incident, but referred to other incidents with the military, including being questioned after a church service in 2009; having military persons listening in on his church service on two occasions and being stopped and asked his name by a person with military bearing in February 2010. In a discussion about this at his Department interview, the applicant stated that these events were untrue and that the only event that actually took place was the one in May 2010.

13. The applicant sought to explain the inconsistencies by saying that the information in his protection visa application form had been filled in by the Fijian pastor who assisted him with his application, not by him, and that he had since stopped relying on the pastor’s assistance.  The Tribunal pointed out that the information to which it was referring was not from the applicant’s protection visa application form, but from his oral evidence to the Department, to which the Tribunal had listened. The applicant said the oral evidence he gave to the current Tribunal was true – that, after the 2006 military coup he began preaching about praying for a change of government in 2009 and in 2010 the two men approached him after church.  He ask forgiveness for the ‘false statements’ in his first interview, saying he did not realise ‘the effect it would have till the hearing today’. 

14. The Tribunal also drew to the applicant’s attention that the entry stamps in his and his wife’s passports, which were presented at the hearing, indicated that they had both spent a considerable amount of time in Australia before their most recent arrival, including almost 3 months between late January and April 2010; as well as several months between September and December 2009. This raised questions about the applicant’s claimed preaching against the government in late 2009. The applicant responded: ‘I do admit to those evidences in the passports, the dates of entry and departure’, but said that he did engage in preaching about the government.

15. The Tribunal also discussed with the applicant country information which it would need to consider in assessing his claims, including from the DFAT Report on Fiji of 14 April 2015, which indicated that:

    ·     The environment for the public expression of political opinion in late 2014 was more open than in previous years; that public commentary on political issues, including criticism of government policies, was permitted and occurred regularly.

    ·     In general, DFAT assessed that those at risk in Fiji were high-profile public figures, including the leaders of organisations that might be seen to challenge the government’s authority or undermine its legitimacy.

    ·     As of 2014, there were no remaining restrictions on the Church’s ability to hold public meetings; that the restrictions on the Methodist Church, which began in 2009, were gradually loosened thereafter; and while the government retained the ability to require the Church to seek permits to hold meetings, it did not do so in practice.

    ·     While it was widely recognised that beatings and torture had taken place under the military regime in Fiji, there had been no credible claims of torture by the military in 2014.

    Ministerial intervention

16. At hearing and in his post-hearing submission of 18 November 2015 the applicants’ representative requested that the Tribunal refer their case to the Minister under section 417 of the Act. The representative noted that this would be a repeat request as the case had previously been referred to the Minister. He submitted that there were unique and exceptional circumstances sufficient to justify a Ministerial referral on the following grounds:

    a.The applicant has an Australian citizen sister, extended family and a [child], with medical issues. If the applicant is required to return to Fiji, it will result in irreparable harm and continuing hardship to them.

    b.The applicants will continue to contribute constructively to the Australian community and economy

    c.Since their arrival in Australia in 2010, they have integrated well into the Australian community, as attested by the letters of support submitted.

    RELEVANT LAW

1. Section 48A imposes a bar on a non-citizen making a further application for a protection visa while in the migration zone in circumstances where the non-citizen has made an application for a protection visa which has been refused. The Full Federal Court in SZGIZ v MIAC (2013) 212 FCR 235 has held at [38] that the operation of s.48A, as it stood at the time of this visa application, is confined to the making of a further application for a protection visa which duplicates an earlier unsuccessful application for a protection visa, in the sense that both applications raise the same essential criterion for the grant of a protection visa. The Federal Court in AMA15 v MIBP [2015] FCA 1424 upheld the Tribunal’s approach of considering only claims in relation to the complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa), where the applicant had previously been refused a visa on the basis of the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a). In light of these authorities, the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims only in relation to s.36(2)(aa).

2. As indicated above, the applicant has previously been refused a Protection visa in Australia. However, the visa application under review is a valid application because the applicant is considered ‘SZGIZ-affected’ as he has not left Australia since the final determination of his previous Protection visa application which preceded the Complementary Protection laws. As the applicant has previously had his claims for protection assessed under s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal must confine its consideration to whether he satisfies the requirements of s.36(2)(aa) and (c).

3. The Complementary Protection provisions (see attachment for the full text of these provisions) in s.36(2)(aa) essentially require that the applicant is a non citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer ‘significant harm’. Significant harm is defined in s.36(2A) of the Act to include that the non citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; the death penalty will be carried out on the non-citizen; the non citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or the non citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment. 'Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment', 'degrading treatment or punishment', and 'torture', are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Are there substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Fiji, that there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm?

4. On the basis of the applicants’ passports, which were presented at the hearing, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts that they are Fijian nationals and assesses their complementary protection claims in reference to Fiji as the receiving country.

5. The applicant indicated during the Tribunal hearing that he fears harm Fiji because of his anti-government political opinion and [Christian] background.

6. For the following reasons, and having regard to the claims and evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants’ removal from Australia to Fiji, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm.

7. As made clear at the hearing, the applicant’s overall credibility as a witness to his claimed circumstances in Fiji is fundamentally in issue in the application under review, for the following reasons.

8. Firstly, the applicant’s admitted readiness to make ‘false statements’ in his earlier Protection visa application process, for which he sought forgiveness (paragraphs 7.k and 13), raises serious doubts about his truthfulness.

9. This is compounded by inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence on issues central to his claims, including when he began to engage in criticism of the government in his church sermons – straight after the coup in 2006 or in late 2009 (paragraph 12.a), the number of times and when he was harassed by the military – once in May 2010 or several times earlier (paragraph 12.b); whether the incident with the military in May 2010 took place as he was walking down the main street of his [suburb] (paragraph 7.f) or when he went to close the church gate (paragraph 8.f) and whether and how many times he and his wife had been to Australia before his most recent arrival (paragraphs 11 and 14).

10. Furthermore, as discussed with the applicant at paragraph 14, the Tribunal does not find plausible his claim that he started to criticise the government during his sermons on Sundays in late 2009 when the exit and entry stamps in his passport reveal that he spent almost two and a half months of the last quarter of 2009 (around 11 Sundays) in Australia.   

11. The Tribunal also notes that the conclusion drawn by the applicant that, on the basis of their tone of voice, angry approach and large build, the two unidentified strangers in civilian clothes in a [colour] car, who allegedly threatened him in May 2010, were soldiers was merely his speculation. Moreover, by the applicant’s own evidence, this was the only incident in which he was allegedly harassed by people he believed to be the military and he did not experience harm in Fiji (paragraphs 8.g and 8.h).

12. As discussed with the applicant at hearing, if, as he claimed he was reported to the military while speaking against the government on the one occasion he gave a public open-air sermon sometime in 2009 (paragraphs 8.b and 8.e), the Tribunal finds it surprising that he was not arrested soon after that occurred. Given the reputation of the Fijian military for dealing harshly with political opponents, the Tribunal finds it curious that they should engage in the roundabout behaviour of sending men in civilian disguise to threaten the applicant in May 2010. According to the entry and exit stamps in his passport, the applicant was able to depart Fiji in January 2010 and return in April 2010 and did not mention any difficulties encountered. This suggests that the authorities were not interested in him at that time.

13. Having considered all of the evidence, including country information from independent sources regarding the political and security situation in Fiji, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has given a truthful account of his experiences in Fiji or that any of his evidence can be relied upon. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was involved in preaching against the government or that he came to the attention of the Fijian authorities for this reason. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was targeted by the Fijian military, government or other authorities for reasons of his political opinion or [Christian] background in Fiji or that he and his wife to left their country because of this.

    Nor is the Tribunal satisfied that, if he returns to Fiji, the applicant will be targeted, harmed or tortured by the authorities as a person holding a political opinion against the military government, because of his previous preaching, his continuous stay in Australia or because of his background as [a] Christian or an Evangelist pastor.

14. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and his wife may fear returning to Fiji as they have no property to return to, have sold all their [belongings] and may face emotional and mental distress because of this; and that the applicant may be affected by the bond he has developed with his [child]. The Tribunal notes that the feared harm in this regard does not rise to the level of significant harm as defined in subsection 36(2A) of the Act.

    The Tribunal is not satisfied, having regard to all of the evidence, that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Fiji, there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm as defined in subsection 36(2A) of the Act because of his political opinion, [Christian] background or for any other reasons.  In the Tribunal’s view, the applicant's claims have been fabricated for the purpose of achieving a migration outcome.

    CONCLUSIONS

15. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(aa) for a protection visa and finds the requirements of that section are not met.

16. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(c). As they do not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, they cannot be granted the visa.

    DECISION

17. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

    Mara Moustafine
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT - RELEVANT LAW

18. In accordance with section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act), the Minister may only grant a visa if the Minister is satisfied that the criteria prescribed for that visa by the Act and the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) have been satisfied. The criteria for the grant of a Protection (Class XA) visa are set out in section 36 of the Act and Part 866 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Subsection 36(2) of the Act provides that:

    ‘(2)  A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

    (a)a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol; or

    (aa)a non citizen in Australia (other than a non citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

    (c)a non citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.’

    Complementary protection criterion

19. An applicant for a protection visa who does not meet the refugee criterion in paragraph 36(2)(a) of the Act may nevertheless meet the complementary protection criterion in paragraph 36(2)(aa) of the Act, set out above.  A person will suffer ‘significant harm’ if they will be arbitrarily deprived of their life, if the death penalty will be carried out on them or if they will be subjected to ‘torture’ or to ‘cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’ or to ‘degrading treatment or punishment’.  The expressions ‘torture’, ‘cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’ and ‘degrading treatment or punishment’ are further defined in subsection 5(1) of the Act.

    Ministerial direction

20. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No. 56, made under section 499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship - ‘PAM3: Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines’ and ‘PAM3: Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines’ - and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    Credibility

21. The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out: MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making (Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275 at 288), the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her: Prasad v MJEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70; Luu & Anor v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39 at 45. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant: Randhawa v MIEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451.