AGI15 v Minister for Immigration

[2017] FCCA 1862

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AGI15 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2017] FCCA 1862

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for judicial review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal (Tribunal) affirming decision of a delegate of the first respondent not to grant applicant protection visa – whether applicant made claim for protection based on deteriorating skin condition – whether Tribunal failed to give applicant notice of issue – no jurisdictional error.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.425

Cases cited:

NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No.2) (2004) 144 FCR 1
NAVK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1695

SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63; (2006) 228 CLR 152

Applicant: AGI15

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 788 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Manousaridis

Hearing date: 1 July 2016

Date of Last Submission: 1 July 2016

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 11 August 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P Bodisco

Solicitors for the Applicant: Michaela Byers Solicitor

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr M J Smith

Solicitors for the First Respondent: DLA Piper Australia

ORDERS

1. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal is substituted for the Refugee Review Tribunal as the second respondent.

2. The application is dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 788 of 2015

AGI15

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka and a Tamil, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (Tribunal) affirming the decision of a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa (Protection visa).

2. The grounds on which the applicant relies relate to what the applicant submits was an integer in the applicant’s claims for protection, namely, a worsening or variable skin condition from which the applicant suffered.

Claims for protection

1. In a statement submitted with his application for a Protection visa (Statement), the applicant claimed he fled Sri Lanka because he feared persecution because of his “race as a Tamil”, his “skin condition”, and his having “fled the country illegally”.[1] The applicant claimed that, when he was ten years old, his pet dog bit the applicant’s face in the course of the Sri Lankan Army (SLA) conducting a roundup of Tamils in the applicant’s village. The applicant was taken to a doctor who gave him medication. The applicant then developed a skin condition that worsened over time. A feature of the applicant’s condition was that his skin severely burned when exposed to heat.[2]

   [1] CB35

   [2] CB36

2. The applicant claimed that, as the civil war in Sri Lanka intensified, so did the roundups of Tamils. The SLA frequently detained young Tamil males and interrogated them about whether they were members or supporters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The applicant claimed that he had been taken about five times and, on other occasions, he had been stopped on the street. The applicant said he “was always of particular suspicion to the SLA due to [the applicant’s] appearance” because they “believed that because [the applicant had] this skin condition, [the applicant] must have been burnt as a result of fighting in the war”.[3]

   [3] CB36

3. The applicant further claimed that in around April 2012 the SLA detained him for around two hours. During this time the applicant was beaten very badly[4] and interrogated by the SLA over what happened to the applicant’s skin, but the SLA “refused to believe the truth”. The SLA told the applicant he “must have been fighting in the war”. The applicant’s parents, however, secured his release. The applicant said a man working at the Village Service Office was aware of the applicant’s skin condition and had offered to support the family with a letter should they require it. Because that person lived a short distance from the applicant’s family, his family were able to acquire the letter quickly[5] and secure the applicant’s release. The applicant stated[6]:

   Given that I have been detained on several instances, and my appearance has led me to coming under greater suspicion and scrutiny, I was afraid that one day I might be killed by the SLA or seriously harmed. Accordingly, I made the decision to flee my country.

   [4] CB36

   [5] CB110

   [6] CB35

Before the delegate

1. The applicant gave further details to the delegate about his skin condition. The applicant said a hospital in Colombo had given him a powder to mix with water. When he initially applied the mixture, his skin was burnt resulting in large white marks. For some time the applicant’s skin looked like it had been burnt but it improved after some time. The applicant was advised by his local hospital that he had a melanin condition “which would slowly turn his skin white”. Since that time the dark pigmentation in the applicant’s skin has been fading.[7] The applicant further said he had received medical advice in Australia that his skin will not return to its original colour, but will get fairer.[8]

   [7] CB110

   [8] CB110

2. The delegate accepted the applicant had the skin condition he claimed he had. The delegate compared the applicant to a photo of the applicant taken at the time he arrived in Australia and noted that the dark pigmentation in the applicant’s face had reduced considerably. The delegate also accepted the applicant’s claim he had been detained by a special task force and interrogated “due to” the applicant’s skin condition, and that he was slapped, kicked, and hit.[9] The delegate, however, refused to grant the applicant a Protection visa as she was not satisfied the applicant had a real chance of being persecuted if he were to return to Sri Lanka.

   [9] CB110

Tribunal’s reasons

1. After reproducing what the applicant said in the Statement, the Tribunal referred to what the delegate had decided. The Tribunal noted, among other things, that: the delegate accepted the applicant had a skin condition; the applicant’s skin condition had improved since he arrived in Australia; the applicant had come to the attention of the authorities because of his skin condition; and there was a suspicion the applicant’s skin condition was caused by his involvement with the LTTE.[10] After referring to evidence the applicant had given to the Tribunal, it noted that “it was now 2015”, and there was limited information regarding the authorities conducting roundups to find LTTE members or supporters in the applicant’s home region.[11] The Tribunal also noted there was country information that identified groups of people who were of interest to the authorities, but the applicant did not fall within any of these groups.[12]

   [10] CB250, [22]

   [11] CB252, [33]

   [12] CB252, [33]

2. The Tribunal then considered the applicant’s claim that, if he were to return to Sri Lanka, he will be targeted and harassed because of his appearance. The Tribunal accepted the applicant has a distinctive appearance caused by his skin condition;[13] that he had been included in general roundups of young Tamil males when there was concern about LTTE activities in the applicant’s area;[14] and that during the roundups the applicant had been asked about his appearance in response to which the applicant produced medical documentation that explained the applicant’s condition which led to his release.[15]

   [13] CB252, [34]

   [14] CB252, [35]

   [15] CB253, [36]

3. The Tribunal did not accept, however, that the applicant’s skin condition led to his being targeted in any specific way, including being viewed with greater suspicion by the authorities.[16] The Tribunal found the applicant did not continue to be of interest to the authorities once he had explained his appearance and answered other questions about his activities.[17] The Tribunal also did not accept that on his return to Sri Lanka the authorities will harass the applicant because of his appearance. The Tribunal found the circumstances that existed in 2012 have altered during the intervening period of the applicant’s absence from Sri Lanka. The Tribunal found the authorities “do not have an interest in the applicant, having demonstrated historically that their interest in the applicant was limited to general roundups that ended in prompt release”.[18]

   [16] CB252, [36]

   [17] CB253, [37]

   [18] CB253, [38]

Grounds of review

1. The further amended application contains two grounds of review. The first is:

   The Tribunal has failed to take into account the full integers of the Applicant’s claim.

   Particulars

   a.By failing to have regard to the varying and worsening condition of the Applicant’s skin, the Tribunal has failed to take into account the full integers of the Applicant’s claim.

2. The second ground of review is as follows:

   The Tribunal has breached section 425 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

   Particulars

   a.The delegate accepted that the Applicant’s skin condition had varied and worsened since he had left Sri Lanka;

   b.The Tribunal misstated the delegate’s findings;

   c.In the circumstances, the Applicant was denied an opportunity of leading further evidence to demonstrate how his skin condition had changed and would appear to authorities upon his return to Sri Lanka.

3. Counsel for the applicant, both in his written and oral submissions, did not separately address the two grounds. The elements of counsel’s submissions were as follows:

   a)The applicant advanced a claim that was premised on his having a skin condition that was deteriorating or which varied with time.

   b)The delegate accepted the applicant had a skin condition, as the applicant claimed, and that the skin condition worsened over time.

   c)The Tribunal incorrectly interpreted the delegate as having found that the applicant’s skin condition had improved.

   d)At the hearing the Tribunal deflected the applicant from advancing his claim based on a deteriorating or variable skin condition.

The applicant’s skin condition

1. Before I consider the grounds stated in the application and the parties’ submissions, it will be necessary to attempt to identify with some precision the skin condition or conditions from which the applicant claimed he suffers. That is necessary because the evidence that was before the Tribunal could reasonably have suggested the applicant claimed to have suffered from two different types of skin conditions.

2. First, in the Statement, the applicant referred to a skin condition that developed over time after the applicant’s pet dog bit the applicant, and after the applicant was given some medication. The applicant stated the skin condition was such that the applicant cannot be in the heat for a long period without “being severely burnt”.

3. Second, before the delegate the applicant referred to two skin conditions.[19] One was a condition that was said to have developed after the applicant applied water mixed with a powder that was given to him by a hospital in Colombo after he was bitten by his dog. The applicant said his skin burned when he applied the mixture “resulting in large white marks” and that, “for some time”, the applicant’s skin looked like it had been burnt but “then after a while this improved”. The other condition the applicant described was the applicant’s “melanin condition which would slowly turn his skin white”. The delegate referred to what the applicant said about his skin condition later in her reasons:[20]

   The applicant explained that when he was ten years old he was given medication which he used all over his body which resulted in significant burns. He was then diagnosed with a melanin deficiency which is resulting in his body lightening in colour. The applicant believes he has been harassed since this time.

   [19] CB110

   [20] CB115

4. In his written submissions, counsel for the applicant appears to accept the delegate recorded the applicant described two different skin conditions. Counsel, however, submitted the delegate “conflated” these conditions:[21]

   Referring to the Applicant’s skin condition appears to conflate the initial bite, the appearance of a “burn” injury while the skin continued to heal and the melanin condition which has seen his skin colour deteriorate.

   [21] Submissions on Behalf of Applicant, [20.a.]

5. I do not accept this submission. As stated in the delegate’s decision record, the delegate identified two different skin conditions: one that manifested itself in “in large white marks” and which looked like it had been burnt, and, one that was associated with a deficiency of melanin that “would slowly turn [the applicant’s] skin white”.

6. Third, before the Tribunal, the applicant referred to his skin condition or conditions on two occasions. The first was in response to the Tribunal’s question about the problems the applicant claimed prevented him from returning to Sri Lanka. The applicant said “because of the skin disease I faced problems”.[22] The second occasion commenced with his response to questions the Tribunal asked about how long the applicant claimed he had “this skin” condition.[23] The applicant said he had the condition since he was 10 years old. The following exchange then took place:

   M:Ok. Now how has that, your skin disease effected [sic] you and why has it caused you problems?

   A:I was bitten by a dog and then the problem started. The medication to apply on the skin it was either stronger or it was given the cream, the skin problem started, the skin problem started.

   M:There has been quite a lot of discussion how your skin condition came through in the delegate’s decision. My question is how has it effected [sic] you?

   A:There was skin all over the body, was sort of patches of black colour and white colour then from time to time when I’m going for tuition etc, they asked me to check my ID card, then asked me whether it happened because of a bomb blast.

   [22] Transcript, page 3.6

   [23] Transcript, page 3.9

7. On a number of occasions in his written submissions, counsel for the applicant refers to “the Applicant’s skin condition”. The passage from counsel’s written submissions that I have already quoted suggests that the skin condition from which counsel submits the applicant claimed he suffered is the melanin condition that has seen the dark pigmentation in his skin deteriorate.

8. In my opinion, however, it is doubtful that this is the skin condition on which the applicant relied or, at least, could reasonably be taken to have relied. In the Statement the applicant referred to his skin becoming worse after he was bitten by his pet dog and after the doctor gave him medication. Before the delegate the applicant referred to a skin condition that was manifested by large white marks that occurred after he applied the mixture of water and the powder he received from a hospital in Colombo. And before the Tribunal the applicant referred to a skin problem that manifested itself in “patches of black colour and white colour” which started after he applied medication.

9. In my opinion, the skin condition on which it was reasonably open to the Tribunal to find the applicant relied for claiming fear of persecution and harm if he were to return to Sri Lanka was the skin condition that the applicant claimed manifested itself in “patches of black colour and white colour”, and which the applicant claimed arose as a consequence of medication which, on advice, he applied to a wound that was inflicted by the applicant’s pet dog. In my opinion, that is how the Tribunal interpreted the applicant’s claim based on his skin condition.

10. This way of stating my opinion is premised on the view that the nature of a claim for protection that is before the Tribunal is not a jurisdictional fact, but a matter for the Tribunal to determine. That, however, may not be correct. If the identification of the claim for protection is a jurisdictional fact, I am of the opinion that the claim the applicant made based on his skin condition was a claim based on the skin condition that manifested itself in “patches of black colour and white colour”.

11. Notwithstanding my opinions of the applicant’s claims based on his skin condition or conditions, I will consider the applicant’s grounds on the alternative assumptions that the applicant relied on the skin condition that manifested itself in “patches of black colour and white colour” and on the skin condition associated with the lack of melanin.

Ground 1 – failure to take into account integers of claim

1. Before I consider ground 1, it will be convenient to set out some relevant principles.

2. In NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No.2) the Full Federal Court said:[24]

   a)The “function of the Tribunal, as of the delegate, is to respond to the case that the applicant advances”; and neither “the delegate nor the Tribunal is obliged to consider claims that have not been made”.[25]

   b)The Tribunal must “deal with the case raised by the material and evidence before it”,[26] and the “question, ultimately, is whether the case put by the [applicant] before the tribunal has sufficiently raised the relevant issue that the tribunal should have dealt with it”.[27]

   c)That does not mean, however, the Tribunal “is only required to deal with claims expressly articulated by the applicant”.[28] On the other hand, the Tribunal “is not required to consider a case that is not expressly made or does not arise clearly on the materials before it”.[29]

   [24] (2004) 144 FCR 1 (Black CJ, French and Selway JJ)

   [25] (2004) 144 FCR 1 at page 19 ([60]). The two quoted passages are respectively from the reasons for judgment of Kirby J in Dranichnikov quoted by Selway J in SGBB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 199 ALR 364 at 405 and the reasons for judgment of von Doussa J in SCAL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] 548 also quoted by Selway J in SGBB at [16]

   [26] (2004) 144 FCR 1 at page 19, [60] quoting Selway J in SGBB at [17]

   [27] (2004) 144 FCR 1 at page 19, [60] quoting Selway J in SGBB at [18]

   [28] (2004) 144 FCR 1 at page 19, [60]

   [29] (2004) 144 FCR 1 at page 20, [61]

3. In NAVK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Allsop J (as his Honour then was) explained when it could be said a claim not expressly made may nevertheless be considered to have been raised:[30]

   From NABE I take it that the Tribunal is not required to consider a claim that is not expressly made or does not arise clearly on the materials before it: NABE at [61]. As the Full Court said at [63] much depends on the circumstances. Whatever adverb or adverbial phrase is used to describe the apparentness of the unarticulated claim, it must, it seems to me, either in fact be appreciated by the Tribunal or, if it is not, arise sufficiently from the material as to require a reasonably competent Tribunal in the circumstances to appreciate its existence. A practical and common sense approach to everyday decision-making requires the unarticulated claim to arise tolerably clearly from the material itself, since the statutory task of the Tribunal is to assess the claims by reference to all the material, not to undertake an independent analytical exercise of the material for the discovery of potential claims which might be made, but which have not been, and then subjecting them to further analysis to assess their legitimacy.

   [30] [2004] FCA 1695 at [15]

4. Did the applicant’s claims include a claim that his skin condition was deteriorating or at least was variable? If, as I have found, the skin condition on which the applicant relied was the skin condition that manifested itself in “patches of black colour and white colour”, the answer to that question must be answered in the negative. Before the delegate the applicant said this condition had improved; and the applicant did not claim before the Tribunal that this skin condition had deteriorated or was variable.

1. Assuming, contrary to my opinion, that the skin condition on which the applicant relied was the decrease of melanin in the applicant’s skin, can it be said the applicant made a claim based on the deteriorating or variability of that condition? In my opinion the answer to that question is “no”, and for three reasons.

2. First, there is nothing in the Statement that could reasonably suggest the applicant claimed he feared harm because of his skin condition deteriorating or varying. There is also nothing in the delegate’s decision record that refers to any claim by the applicant that he feared harm not only because of his skin condition, but also because of the deterioration or variation of his skin condition. It is true the delegate referred to the applicant’s having stated that he had been advised by his local hospital that he had a melanin condition that would slowly turn his skin white. But there is nothing in the delegate’s decision that suggests the applicant claimed he feared harm because his skin would turn white over time. There is also no suggestion the applicant claimed that the lightening of the colour of his skin could signify that he was the victim of burns or any other injury consistent with his having been injured in some sort of combat or other activity of violence, and, for that reason, expose him to a risk of harm.

3. Second there is nothing in the evidence the applicant gave before the Tribunal that could reasonably have suggested the applicant intended to make a claim based on the melanin skin condition he has.

   a)The Tribunal asked the applicant how long he had suffered from his skin condition, how the skin condition affected the applicant, and why it caused the applicant problems. As I have already noted, the applicant said a dog bit him after which the problems with his skin started. The applicant referred to the impact of the medication that he had applied after he was bitten by his pet dog. After noting there had been a lot of discussion before the delegate about how the applicant’s skin condition “came through”, the Tribunal again asked the applicant how his skin condition affected him. The applicant said there appeared “sort of patches of black colour and white colour” and, from time to time, when his identification was being checked, authorities asked him whether the patches “happened because of a bomb blast”.

   b)The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s having been given a letter from a doctor and asked when it had been given. The applicant answered: “when this skin condition developed”; and he confirmed that, when authorities approached the applicant, the applicant showed the letter. In answer to the Tribunal’s question what did the authorities do when the applicant showed them the medical evidence about his condition, the applicant said “[t]hey would check that and let me go”.

   c)The Tribunal asked the applicant why he had concerns “about going back now”. The applicant responded “because of this problem”. The Tribunal then said there did not appear “to be a significant problem from what you’re saying”. The Tribunal noted that in 2012 authorities were looking for people they suspected to be LTTE supporters, they stopped the applicant and other young Tamil men, and they released the applicant from questioning. At this point the Tribunal asked: “What did you have to say to that?” The applicant only said he could not return “to that country”. The Tribunal again asked why the applicant now feared harm, given that it was almost six years after the war finished. The applicant said he would be harassed. In answer to the Tribunal’s question why he would be harassed now, that is, on 15 February 2015, the applicant said: “[o]n suspicion, they detain the Tamil ethnic people, even now they detain people”.[31]

   [31] Transcript 4.3-5.6

4. Third, the Tribunal made the following statement to the applicant later in the hearing:[32]

   Yes. I have some very, very serious concerns about this element of your claim. And it’s the passing of time that is the most significant issue for you, cause the information is there that things are not what they were, even three years ago. And even when things were more difficult you were released after short periods of time. . . .

   [32] Transcript, page 7.7

5. The applicant did not say anything in response to this statement to the effect that his skin condition was deteriorating or varying, or that he feared his skin condition would deteriorate or vary and, for that reason, he would be exposed to harm.

6. Counsel for the applicant submitted the Tribunal deflected the applicant from advancing his claim based on a deteriorating or variable skin condition. In particular, counsel submitted (emphasis in original):[33]

   It is clear from the discussion of the Applicant’s skin condition that the Tribunal has side stepped the issue of the Applicants [sic] skin condition to focus instead on how the accepted skin condition affected the Applicant’s past dealings with the authorities in Sri Lanka. Certainly, what has not been taken into account by this retrograde analysis is the varying nature of the skin condition

   [33] Submissions on Behalf of Applicant, [16]

7. I do not accept this submission. The Tribunal’s questions were largely directed to eliciting from the applicant evidence of why and how he feared his skin condition would affect him if he were to return to Sri Lanka. The Tribunal’s questions were capable of eliciting from the applicant any claim he might have had based on his skin condition deteriorating or varying if the applicant in fact intended to make any such claim. Had the applicant intended to make a claim based on any deteriorating or varying skin condition, the questions the Tribunal asked ought reasonably to have elicited from the applicant any claim he intended to make based on the deteriorating or variable nature of his skin condition. The applicant did not do this; and the inescapable inference that is available to be drawn, and which I draw, is that the applicant did not do so because he did not intend to make any such claim.

8. In my opinion, the applicant articulated no claim, and the material that was before the Tribunal did not give rise or otherwise reasonably disclose a claim, based on the applicant’s suffering from a skin condition that was deteriorating or which otherwise bore a variable character. Ground 1, therefore, fails.

Ground 2 – failure to notify issue of deteriorating skin condition

1. Ground 2 relies on the principles considered by the High Court in SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.[34] The applicant relies on passages from the High Court’s judgment that includes the following[35]:

   The Tribunal is not confined to whatever may have been the issues that the delegate considered. The issues that arise in relation to the decision are to be identified by the Tribunal. But if the Tribunal takes no step to identify some issue other than those that the delegate considered dispositive, and does not tell the applicant what that other issue is, the applicant is entitled to assume that the issues the delegate considered dispositive are “the issues arising in relation to the decision under review.” That is why the point at which to begin the identification of issues arising in relation to the decision under review will usually be the reasons given for that decision. And unless some other additional issues are identified by the Tribunal (as they may be), it would ordinarily follow that, on review by the Tribunal, the issues arising in relation to the decision under review would be those which the original decision-maker identified as determinative against the applicant.

   [34] [2006] HCA 63; (2006) 228 CLR 152

   [35] [2006] HCA 63; (2006) 228 CLR 152, [35]

2. The applicant submits the delegate had accepted the applicant suffered from a deteriorating or varying skin condition but the Tribunal had incorrectly considered the delegate had found the applicant had a skin condition that was improving. The applicant submits this brings his case within the principles for which SZBEL is authority because, given the delegate’s acceptance that the applicant was suffering from a worsening skin condition, the applicant was entitled to assume that his suffering from such skin condition would not be an issue before the Tribunal. The applicant claims that, by the Tribunal holding or proceeding on the basis that the applicant’s skin condition had improved, the applicant was not given notice that his deteriorating skin condition would be an issue, and he was deprived of the opportunity to provide evidence and make submissions on that question.

3. There are at least three answers to this ground. First the ground is premised on the applicant’s having made a claim based on his having a skin condition that is deteriorating or which bears a variable character. For reasons I have given, the applicant made no such claim.

4. Second, even if the applicant can be taken to have made such a claim, I am not satisfied the Tribunal incorrectly described the delegate’s findings. As I have already noted, the delegate referred to two skin conditions, one that manifested itself in “ large white marks” which, “for some time”, looked like it had been burnt but that “after a while . . . improved”, and one that was associated with a “melanin condition which would slowly turn his skin white”.[36] In my opinion, the Tribunal’s reference to the delegate’s having noted the “applicant’s skin condition having improved since coming to Australia”[37] was intended by the Tribunal to refer to the delegate’s noting that the “patches of black colour and white colour” on the applicant’s skin “after a while . . . improved”.

   [36] CB110

   [37] CB250, [22]

5. Third, even if the Tribunal incorrectly assumed the delegate found the applicant’s skin condition had improved, the applicant suffered no impractical justice. The questions the Tribunal asked of the applicant ought reasonably to have suggested to the applicant that the there was a substantial risk the Tribunal would not consider the applicant’s skin condition to be such as to give the applicant cause to fear harm in Sri Lanka. In addition, the Tribunal’s questions ought reasonably to have suggested to the applicant that the Tribunal was not proceeding on any assumption that the applicant’s skin condition was deteriorating or was of a variable character. In those circumstances, had the applicant in fact intended to make a claim based on a deteriorating or variable skin condition, he had a reasonable opportunity to do so.

6. Ground 2, therefore, also fails.

Disposition

1. I propose to order that the application be dismissed. I will also order that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be substituted for the Tribunal as the second respondent.

I certify that the preceding forty-three (43) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Manousaridis

Date:  11 August 2017