1601972 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 725

1601972 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 725 (27 February 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1601972

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Fiji

MEMBER:Mara Moustafine

DATE:27 February 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 27 February 2018 at 11:02am

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Fiji – Social group – Abusive ex-husband – Fears domestic violence – No evidence of ex-husband’s claims – Serious concerns about the applicant’s credibility – Deviates from her original protection visa application claims

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5H, 5J, 5K-LA, 36, 65,499
Migration Regulations 1994 Schedule 2

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

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant claims to be a citizen of Fiji and is [age] years of age. She arrived in Australia on [date] March 2015 as the holder of [a] Visitor visa valid until [date] June 2015.

3. The applicant applied to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) for a Protection visa on [date] May 2015 and the Department refused to grant the visa on [date] December 2015.

4. On 18 February 2017, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision, a copy of which she provided to the Tribunal for the purpose of the review and is taken to be on notice of its findings and reasons.

5. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 February 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. An earlier hearing on 11 January 2018 was adjourned as the applicant was not in a fit state to give evidence. 

6. The issues that arise on review are whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion.

7. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

8. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

9. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.

10. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).

11. Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

12. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia 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 being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

    Mandatory considerations

13. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    Application to the Department

14. According to her Protection visa application form, the applicant was born in [a] district of Fiji and lived in [Town 1] before coming to Australia. She identified as an Indigenous Fijian and a Christian. She stated that after completing twelve years of education in [date], she was self-employed. She was married in 2002 and divorced in June 2014. Her two daughters, [age] and [age] living in Fiji, as do her parents and [siblings]. In October 2014 she visited [Country 1] to attend a church conference.

15. In her application form, the applicant stated that she left Fiji out of fear and insecurity after seeing the political situation deteriorate day by day and concerned that the current tension could ‘escalate into a situation of catastrophic proportions’. She stated that she did not experience harm in Fiji but fears that if she returns there, she could be ‘taken in and face retribution’ as a relative of [a military officer], who quit the Fiji military due to differences with coup leader, now Prime Minister, Bainimarama. She claimed that even members of the [military officer]’s extended family were perceived as opposed to the military and the governing regime and that due to her connection with the [military officer], there was no guarantee that she would be free from harm should there be a fresh uprising in Fiji.

16. According to the Department decision record, at her Protection visa interview on [date] October 2015, the applicant introduced the claim that she feared harm in Fiji from her ex-husband, who had subjected her to physical and sexual assaults both during and after their marriage, and that she will not be able to live safely due to inadequate protection by the police against sexual and gender based violence.

17. The applicant provided a copy of her birth certificate and her divorce certificate dated [July] 2014.

    Application for review

18. Having confirmed at the beginning of the hearing that she was fit to give evidence, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant her background, family, travel history and claims for protection. Among other things, the applicant told the Tribunal that, since arriving in Australia, she had studied [and] was working as an [occupation]. She had married an Australian citizen in December 2016 and was intending to apply for a partner visa, although she was still saving money for this.

19. The applicant told the Tribunal that she was afraid to return to Fiji because her ex-husband would come after her wherever she went and she would face the same physical and verbal abuse as before. The applicant claimed that she knew this would happen because he had ‘always’ been abusive, [a] point she repeated several times in the hearing. She said she had been separated on and off from her ex-husband since 2010. While she was living with her parents, he kept coming around at night, always drunk and abused her physically and sexually. She got divorced in June 2014 because she could not stand this abuse and degradation anymore and thought this would change things. However, the abuse did not stop.

20. The applicant said she sometimes called the police to report her ex-husband, but most of the time they told her they had no transport and did not come. On one occasion, sometime in 2010, when she was really hurt and had to go to hospital, her ex-husband was arrested and charged with abuse. However, she had to forgive him because she was still relying on him for financial support. The applicant claimed that she was unable to provide any evidence to support her claims as the police variously did not keep records or used a manual filing system. As for the hospital where she was treated, the applicant claimed that she tried to obtain the report last year, using her married name, which she was still using, although already divorced at that time, but could not obtain the documents as she did not know her file number.

21. The applicant said that, although she was familiar with NGO sector from her volunteer work, she had not contacted women’s groups in Fiji to seek help against abuse from her ex-husband because she did not think about it at the time, did not want to talk about her problems and was keeping it to herself.

22. The applicant told the Tribunal that, when she came to Australia in March 2015 to visit her aunt, she was not intending to return to Fiji because of her fear of her ex-husband. However, she only decided to apply for a Protection visa after discussing with people here how to stay in Australia because of her problems in Fiji. She received advice from her cousin’s friend but did not pay him and did not identify him as assisting in completing the application form as she did this herself. She said variously that this friend told her that she could have two reasons for applying for protection – the physical abuse from her ex-husband, as well as the lack of freedom of speech in Fiji; that, as her claim ‘was not really good’, she had to add another one and make freedom of speech the first one as the government was still not stable and because of her [relative]’s involvement with army. 

23. In discussion with the Tribunal, the applicant confirmed that she had never faced harm from the authorities in Fiji or been a political activist and that no one in her family had faced harm over any issues between her [relative] and Bainimarama. She stated several times that the only reason she was afraid to return to Fiji was because of her ex-husband and confirmed that she was dropping her original claim that she would face harm in Fiji over her inferred political opinion of opposition to the government as a result of her relationship with her [relative].

24. At the start of the hearing the applicant said she had “no idea” as to the current whereabouts of her ex-husband. She said she last saw him three days before she left for Australia in 2015, when he came to her parents’ house at night. After her mother told him two weeks later that she was no longer there, he had not returned to the house and had stopped supporting their children, who now relied on her sister in [Country 1] and herself. Later in the hearing, however, the applicant said that family members and neighbours had seen her ex-husband in town and hanging around the street near the house, drinking, as recently as three days ago. When the Tribunal suggested that, rather than having “no idea” about her ex-husband’s whereabouts, the applicant seemed to have quite current information that he was in [Town 1], she responded variously that she did not know where he was and that he might not be in [Town 1] as he was working in his family’s business and often went out of town. Asked how she knew this, the applicant said that this was what she believed as it was where he was working when she left Fiji and had never worked anywhere else.

25. The applicant initially said that she had not had any contact from her ex-husband since coming to Australia, that he did not know she was here or that she had married again. However, later in the hearing she speculated that the missed calls on her mobile phone were from him, even though she did not have this phone previously, had not given him the number and did not know how he would have got it. She also suggested that, as her family knew that she had remarried, her ex-husband might also know.

26. The applicant told the Tribunal that she visited [Country 1] in October 2014 for a church conference but did not seek protection there as she was not thinking about the problems with her ex-husband. She was always busy and staying with the group and having to go out and come back together. Nor did she see her sister who was living in [Country 1] and supporting the applicant’s children in Fiji.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

27. On the basis of her Fijian passport presented at hearing and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a citizen of Fiji and that Fiji is the receiving country for the purposes of s.36(2)(aa).

28. For reasons outlined below the Tribunal did not find that the applicant to be a truthful and credible witness about the reasons she fears harm in Fiji. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has had regard to her unsubstantiated and inconsistent evidence, the implausible and speculative nature of key aspects of her claims and other reasons detailed below. In the Tribunal’s view, the applicant’s claims for protection have been contrived to achieve a migration outcome.

29. The applicant’s claims for protection shifted significantly over the course of her Protection visa assessment process. Her initial claim in her Protection visa application form, lodged in May 2015, was that she left Fiji out of fear and insecurity after seeing the political situation deteriorate day by day. In particular, she feared she could be ‘taken in and face retribution’ because her [relative] quit the military due to differences with then coup leader and now Prime Minister Bainimarama. At her Department interview in October 2015, she added the new claim that she feared harm in Fiji from her ex-husband, who had subjected her to physical and sexual assaults both during and after their marriage. At her hearing in February 2018, however, the applicant told the Tribunal that her fear that her ex-husband would come after her wherever she went and abuse her as before, was the main reason she feared returning to Fiji.

30. Given the applicant’s evidence that she had never been a political activist and neither she nor anyone in her family had ever faced harm from the authorities in Fiji over any issues between her [relative] and Bainimarama; as well as her confirmation that she was dropping her earlier claim to fear harm for political reasons or her association with her [relative] who quit the army, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does not face a real chance of harm for these reasons.

31. Based on country information, the Tribunal accepts that women in Fiji continue to experience high levels of physical and sexual violence and that, in practice, police protection is reportedly inadequate to protect women at risk of violence[1]. However, the Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence regarding her claim that she was abused by her ex-husband in the past and that she will be harmed by him if she returns to Fiji, vague and implausible.

    [1] DFAT, DFAT Country Information Report: Fiji,  27 September 2017

32. Significantly, the applicant made no mention of these claims in her original application and only introduced them at her Department interview. As discussed with the applicant, her failure to mention the issue which she claims forced her to leave Fiji in March 2015 and which is now her sole reason to fear returning there raises serious concerns about her credibility. The Tribunal does not find reasonable her explanation that she did this on the advice of her cousin’s friend, variously because he told her to only raise the political opinion issues in her application form and to leave the domestic violence issue until she was asked about it; and that she had to add another claim as her claim ‘was not really good’ (paragraph 21 refers). As discussed with the applicant, the Tribunal cannot disregard the fact that she signed a declaration stating: “the information which I have supplied or caused to be supplied on or with this form is complete, correct and up to date in every detail” and did not identify anyone as assisting her to complete her application form. In the Tribunal’s view, the applicant added the claim of domestic violence after submitting her application form in order to strengthen her case for protection.

33. The Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s credibility are compounded by the fact that she did not seek protection in [Country 1] during her visit in October 2014. If, as the applicant claimed, she divorced her ex-husband in June 2014 because she could no longer stand his abuse and his continued harassment prompted her to start making arrangements to leave Fiji for Australia in January 2015, the Tribunal finds it implausible that she would not have been thinking about her problems during her visit to [Country 1], as she claimed, or seized the opportunity to seek protection there. The Tribunal finds unpersuasive the applicant’s response that she was busy with her church conference and confined to her group. As discussed with the applicant, in the Tribunal’s experience, someone in genuine fear of serious harm would not be constrained by the restrictions of group travel.

34. The applicant provided no evidence to the Department or the Tribunal to substantiate her claim that she had been abused in Fiji by her ex-husband in the past. As discussed with the applicant, the Tribunal finds implausible her claim at hearing that she called the police but that they were unable to provide reports because they used a manual filing system; nor that she could not obtain hospital reports because she did not know her file number. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant’s claim at paragraph 20 that she used her married name, although she was already divorced at the time, is inconsistent with her evidence that she obtained her divorce in June 2014.   

35. The applicant provided no evidence to support her claim that her ex-husband would harm and abuse her if she returned to Fiji, which she confirmed several times was the only reason she was afraid to return there. Notwithstanding her evidence that her ex-husband had not been to her parents’ house, contacted their children, spoken with her or done anything in relation to her since she left Fiji in 2015, the applicant repeated that she ‘believed’ that, if she returned to Fiji, he would come after her. She claimed this would happen because he had ‘always’ been [abusive]. To the Tribunal’s suggestion that this was no more than speculation on her part, the applicant repeated that she “just knew” that if she came back to Fiji he would be there because he always abused her and would always go after her.

36. Similarly, the Tribunal found that the applicant’s evidence regarding the whereabouts of her ex-husband, whether or not he had contacted her or knew of her marriage speculative and shifting to suit her needs (paragraphs 24 and 25).

37. In light of the multiple concerns outlined above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has been a truthful about her experiences in Fiji and the reasons she fears harm there. As noted above, the applicant has withdrawn her claim to fear returning to Fiji for reasons of her imputed political opinion and the Tribunal is satisfied that she does not face a real chance of serious or significant harm for this reason. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant left Fiji out of fear of her ex-husband. Nor does the Tribunal accept that, if the applicant returns to Fiji, there is a real chance that she will face serious or significant harm from her ex-husband, as claimed or for any other reason. In the Tribunal’s view, the applicant fabricated these claims to achieve a migration outcome.

1. For the same reasons, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied 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 that he will suffer significant harm.

   CONCLUSIONS

2. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).

3. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

4. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

   DECISION

5. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

   Mara Moustafine
   Member

   
   

   ATTACHMENT  -  Extract from Migration Act 1958

   5 (1) Interpretation
   …
   cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

   (a)severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

   (b)pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

   but does not include an act or omission:

   (c)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

   (d)arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

   …
   degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

   (a)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

   (b)that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

   …
   torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

   (a)for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

   (b)for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

   (c)for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

   (d)for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

   (e)for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

   but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

   …
   receiving country,  in relation to a non-citizen, means:

   (a)a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

   (b)if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

   …

   5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

   (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

   (a)   the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

   (b)   there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

   (c)   the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

   Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

   (2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

   Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

   (3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

   (a)   conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

   (b)   conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

   (c)   without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

   (i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in them practice of his or her faith;

   (ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

   (iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

   (iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

   (v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

   (vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

   (4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

   (a)   that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

   (b)   the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

   (c)   the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

   (5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

   (a)   a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

   (b)   significant physical harassment of the person;

   (c)   significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

   (d)   significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

   (e)   denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

   (f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

   (6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

   5K  Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

   For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

   (a)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

   (b)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

   (i)the first person has ever experienced; or

   (ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

   where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

   Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

   5L  Membership of a particular social group other than family

   For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

   (a)   a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

   (b)   the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

   (c)   any of the following apply:

   (i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

   (ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

   (iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

   (d)   the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

   5LA  Effective protection measures

   (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

   (a)   protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

   (i)the relevant State; or

   (ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

   (b)   the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

   (2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

   (a)   the person can access the protection; and

   (b)   the protection is durable; and

   (c)   in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

   ..

   36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

   …

   (2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

   (a)   the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

   (b)   the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

   (c)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

   (d)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

   (e)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

   (2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

   (a)   it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

   (b)   the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

   (c)   the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

   …