Alm16 v Minister for Immigration
[2017] FCCA 1029
•19 May 2017
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ALM16 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2017] FCCA 1029 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Judicial Review – application for review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) affirming decision not to grant applicant protection visa – whether Tribunal acted unreasonably or irrationally – whether Tribunal applied country information without having regard to the particular circumstances of the applicant – no jurisdictional error. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.5, 36(2A) |
| Cases cited: SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 175 |
| Applicant: | ALM16 |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 458 of 2016 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Manousaridis |
| Hearing date: | 27 April 2017 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 27 April 2017 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 19 May 2017 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr A Kumar |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | DLA Piper Australia |
ORDERS
The application is dismissed.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 458 of 2016
| ALM16 |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka and a Tamil. He seeks judicial review of the decision of the second respondent (Tribunal) affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa (Protection Visa).
This matter came before me on a show cause hearing. With the consent of the parties, however, the matter was dealt with as a final hearing.
Claims for protection
The applicant stated his claims for protection on a number of occasions: at an Irregular Maritime Arrival Entry Interview conducted by an officer of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on 28 September 2012 (Entry Interview);[1] in a statutory declaration that formed part of the application for a Protection Visa the applicant made on 9 January 2013;[2] in a letter dated 5 June 2015 from the applicant’s representative to the Tribunal;[3] at a hearing before a differently constituted Tribunal; before the Tribunal on 3 December 2015 and 18 January 2016;[4] and in a statement dated 15 January 2016 the applicant provided to the Tribunal after the hearing on 3 December 2015, but before the hearing on 18 January 2016.[5]
[1] CB1-18
[2] CB80-86
[3] CB176-224
[4] CB280, [3]
[5] CB267-8
According to his statutory declaration, in 2005 the applicant, while working with a particular employer (Employer), travelled to a village in Vavuniya with a colleague. The CID (that is, the Criminal Investigation Department) picked up the applicant after they found out the applicant was from a particular village in Vavuniya. The CID also took the applicant’s colleague, but released him because he “belonged to Vavuniya”. The applicant, however, was taken for interrogation and beaten by the CID from about 9.00 am to 4.00 pm. He was released after the applicant’s boss came to speak to the authorities. The CID accused the applicant of being a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), and asked the applicant if he was bringing bombs to Vavuniya. When the applicant denied he was doing so, the CID punched and slapped the applicant several times. After that incident, the applicant’s boss advised him it would be best for the applicant to stop working for the Employer because the CID would be looking for him. The applicant stopped working for a few months.
A few months after the applicant returned to the village in Sellvapurum, the LTTE came to the village and began recruiting young men for their cause. The applicant’s father was afraid the applicant would be recruited and told the applicant to go back to the Employer because it was no longer safe for the applicant to remain in the village. The applicant requested “a return to” the Employer, which his boss said was fine. The applicant returned to the Employer in May 2006.
On his return to the Employer, the applicant’s boss told the applicant to “work in the back” so the CID would not see him. When, on one occasion, the applicant went to the main section, the applicant was spotted and questioned by a CID officer, who told the applicant to report to the CID office in Vavuniya. The applicant’s boss warned the applicant not to go because the CID would harm him. The applicant’s boss told the applicant he “should stay in the back”, and that, if the CID were to return, the applicant’s boss would handle it.
The applicant was afraid. He called his uncle in Qatar, who arranged a visa and a job for the applicant in Qatar. To get to Qatar, the applicant had to go to his uncle’s friend’s house in Negambo, Colombo. The applicant travelled there with his aunt. While at the house, CID members came and took the applicant and his aunt for questioning. The applicant was beaten by police, who accused him of being an LTTE member who was in Colombo to plant bombs. The applicant told the officers he was going to Qatar the following day, but they did not believe him. The applicant was beaten with sticks, while a “lady officer” beat the applicant’s aunt. The police detained the applicant overnight, but he was released after telling the police that his flight was leaving at 5.00 am the following day. The applicant was told his aunt would not be released, and that a case would be put against her. The applicant refused to leave his aunt, but she insisted he leave. The applicant claims his aunt was released 15 days later, after his uncle contacted his Sinhalese friend to arrange for her release.
In 2009 the applicant returned to Sri Lanka from Doha because he had not heard from his father or grandfather and had become worried about their wellbeing. On his return, the applicant was stopped and questioned by the CID at the bus stop. The applicant’s family were living in a refugee camp, which the applicant was not allowed to enter. The applicant’s family obtained a pass out to see the applicant and told him not to come and live in the camp, because the conditions were harsh, but to go and live with his aunt instead. The applicant went to stay with his aunt in Jaffna.
In 2010 the applicant decided to return to his village. On his return, the applicant registered with the police, who told the applicant that he must report to them whenever he was called. One morning the CID called in the applicant and questioned him. Once they found out the applicant had been in Doha, they accused him of being a member of the LTTE. The applicant was beaten with sticks, and kept overnight in the cells with no food or water. The CID released the applicant the following day and told him that he must report to them “whenever they call me”.
In September 2010 the applicant leased a rickshaw to drive around the city. When the CID saw the applicant, they began to question him, and told the applicant to report to their headquarters at 6.00 pm. The applicant did not want to report, but his friend told him that it was best to go, and he dropped the applicant off at the headquarters. When he arrived, the applicant was put into a dark room by CID officers, who told him to sit in the corner. The applicant then endured “severe torture by certain CID officials”. The applicant was released and was told to sign in with the CID every three days. The applicant complied “for about four occasions”, before deciding, on the advice of a friend, not to go in anymore.
In 2011, “fairly late at night”, while waiting “outside the karate house for the karate master”, the applicant was spotted by the police who told the applicant to come with them to the station. The applicant was kept in a cell overnight and was released in the morning only after “the karate master came to arrange” the applicant’s release.
In January 2012, during a music festival, a fight broke out between the army and Tamils after the army told the music groups to sing in Sinhalese. The army later called off the music festival. The applicant lodged a complaint with the police, but the police did not take any action.
In April 2012 the CID from the applicant’s village called in the applicant for interrogation. The CID told the applicant that officials who had previously interrogated the applicant had provided them with the applicant’s file and there was enough proof the applicant was working with the LTTE. The CID officials told the applicant to confess his involvement with the LTTE. The CID released the applicant after he told them he was not associated with the LTTE “in any shape or form”.
A few weeks later, while driving his rickshaw, the applicant was confronted by the CID officer who had beaten him “on the previous occasion”. The officer that kicked the applicant had a grudge against the applicant because the applicant had told senior CID officers that the officer had beaten him. The officer told the applicant he was aware of what the applicant had said about him, and that he was going to get the applicant back.
The applicant discussed his persecution by the CID with his grandparents. They told the applicant to go back to Doha. The applicant contacted his uncle to arrange another visa, who then told the applicant to go to Colombo, and that it would take one month to obtain a visa. While waiting for his visa in Colombo, the applicant met a friend who told him about “catching a boat to Australia”. The applicant decided to go to Australia because his application for a visa for Qatar was rejected, and he was “terrified of living in Sri Lanka because of the CID”.
After he left for Australia, “at least twenty” CID officers visited the applicant’s father’s house and demanded that the applicant report to their office because they have a case against the applicant for theft. The officers threatened that if the applicant did not report, they would take the applicant’s brother or father instead.
The applicant claimed protection on three grounds. He is a Tamil, he would be imputed with a pro LTTE political opinion, and he is a member of a particular social group, namely, a failed asylum seeker who departed Sri Lanka illegally.
Tribunal’s decision
The Tribunal was not satisfied the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution, and the Tribunal was “not satisfied as to the applicant’s credibility in relation to some aspects of his evidence and to some aspects of his claims”.[6]
[6] CB296, [58]
As to the applicant’s claims based on his being a Tamil, the Tribunal relied on the following matters:
a)The Tribunal accepted country information that ethnic Tamils are not people at risk unless they have a real or perceived link to the LTTE. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had any such risk profile.[7]
b)The applicant had been able to obtain his passport in Sri Lanka, and was able to leave and return to Sri Lanka without difficulty.[8]
c)There were “significant inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence in terms of claims that had been made in his statutory declaration and in written submissions made on his behalf as opposed to the evidence that he gave to the Tribunal about his claims”.[9] For example:
i)The Tribunal noted the applicant did not mention in his Entry Interview that he and his aunt had been detained at the police station.[10]
ii)Before the Tribunal the applicant claimed that CID officers bashed and tortured him and poured water over him in 2010 before he acquired the rickshaw, whereas in his statutory declaration the applicant claimed that occurred after he acquired the rickshaw.[11]
iii)Before the Tribunal on 3 December 2015 the applicant said he purchased the rickshaw business in March 2011,[12] but at the hearing on 18 January 2016 he said he purchased or leased the rickshaw in June or July 2010.[13]
iv)In his statutory declaration the applicant claimed that when he was detained after the CID observed him on his rickshaw the CID accused the applicant of being a member of the LTTE, while before the Tribunal the applicant claimed he was accused of funding the LTTE.[14]
v)In his statutory declaration the applicant claimed that in April 2012 the CID called in the applicant’s village for interrogation.[15] In the applicant’s representative’s submissions, however, it was claimed the CID telephoned the applicant with a request that he attend their office for questioning but, after confirming with the CID when and where he must attend, the applicant did not attend the CID offices.[16]
vi)Before the Tribunal the applicant said he did not leave Sri Lanka lawfully because of his problems with the CID, while in his statutory declaration the applicant referred to his having applied for a visa to enter Qatar.[17]
[7] CB296, [59]
[8] CB297, [60]
[9] CB297, [60]
[10] CB288, [34]
[11] CB288-289, [37]
[12] CB289, [37]
[13] CB290, [39]
[14] CB289, [37]
[15] CB291, [41] referring to the statutory declaration at CB84, [40]-[42]
[16] CB291, [41] referring to CB187, [59]
[17] CB291, [42]
The Tribunal concluded:[18]
[T]he totality of the numerous inconsistencies and variations in relation to the applicant’s claims and the details surrounding those claims are such that the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a credible witness and that many of the events and incidents did not occur as claimed by the applicant.
[18] CB298, [62]
The Tribunal relied on the following matters in rejecting the applicant’s claims based on his being imputed with a pro-LTTE opinion.
a)The applicant did not claim he was a member or supporter of the LTTE.[19]
b)The applicant was not charged with any offence, and he had been allowed to leave and return to Sri Lanka without any difficulty.[20]
c)Having regard to its “overall assessment of the applicant’s credibility”, the Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s claims that he was questioned about the LTTE, or that he was harmed or mistreated.[21]
d)If the applicant had been a person of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities because he was suspected of being a supporter of the LTTE he would not have been allowed to leave Sri Lanka on his passport.[22]
[19] CB298, [63]
[20] CB298, [63]
[21] CB298, [63]
[22] CB299, [64]
As to the applicant’s claims based on his being a failed asylum seeker, the Tribunal was satisfied the applicant left Sri Lanka illegally, and that he would be charged with an offence for having departed Sri Lanka illegally, contrary to the Immigrants and Emigrants Act (IE Act); that the enforcement of the IE Act is the enforcement of an Act of general application imposed for the legitimate purpose of border control, and its enforcement does not involve systematic and discriminatory conduct; and that returnees are treated at the airport according to standard procedures regardless of a person’s ethnic makeup and are not subject to mistreatment during their processing at the airport.[23] The Tribunal was not satisfied, however, that if the applicant was unable to obtain bail immediately and the applicant spent a number of days in jail, that there would be a real chance the applicant would suffer harm.[24] The Tribunal was satisfied that, if the applicant were granted bail, a relative of the applicant is likely to assist the applicant.[25] The Tribunal noted earlier in its reasons that it discussed with the applicant country information about what occurs to failed asylum seekers who left Sri Lanka in breach of the IE Act, including the range of fines that are likely to be imposed, and that most returnees have been immediately granted bail on personal recognizance on terms that a family member act as guarantor.[26]
[23] CB300, [67]
[24] CB300, [67]
[25] CB300, [67]
[26] CB294-295, [54]
Finally, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s claims against the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal was not satisfied there were substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his being removed from Australia to Sri Lanka the applicant will face a real risk of significant harm.[27] The Tribunal relied on its findings about the applicant’s claims of harm.[28] The Tribunal also considered whether the conditions the applicant might face if he were to be remanded in custody pending a bail determination would constitute significant harm. It concluded that, although the prison conditions the applicant might face would be poor, they would not constitute significant harm.[29]
[27] CB302, [72]
[28] CB301, [69]
[29] CB301, [70]
Grounds of application
The amended application for review contains three grounds.
Ground 1 – unreasonableness and irrationality
The first ground is as follows:
The Tribunal was unreasonable and/or irrational or illogical regarding the claim that the Applicant and his aunt had been taken for questioning (CB293). The Tribunal thereby committed jurisdictional error.
Particulars
(a)The Applicant was asked questions regarding his arrival;
(b)The questions pertained to and the focus being the illegal departure.
(c)The arrival interview wanted the Applicant to answer narrow questions (CB13, CB14).
(d)The Tribunal fell into error in finding that there was no mention regarding the detention of the Applicant and his aunt (CB293 at [51]) at the entry interview.
(e)The Tribunal thereby committed jurisdictional error.
The narrow question the applicant submits the applicant was asked at the Entry Interview is that recorded in question 6 of the document headed “Irregular Maritime Arrival Entry Interview” (IMAEI form).[30] The question was whether “you [were] ever arrested or detained by the police or security organisations”. The answer the applicant is recorded as giving is that he was detained sometime in November 2011. Mr Kumar, who appeared for the applicant, submitted the Tribunal was unreasonable or irrational in referring “to the fact that there had been no mention in the entry interview document of the applicant’s claims that he and his aunt had been detained and beaten before he left to go to Doha/Qatar”.[31] Mr Kumar submitted question 6 was only directed to the applicant’s having been detained and, therefore, it was not reasonable to expect that, when answering that question, the applicant would or should have referred to his aunt’s having been detained.
[30] CB14
[31] CB293, [51]
There are at least two difficulties with the applicant’s submissions. The first is that question 6 of the IMAEI form is not the only question the applicant answered. One of the questions recorded on the IMAEI form was why “did you leave your country of nationality (country of residence)?”[32] In that section of the IMAEI form, the applicant was asked “Has anything violent happened towards you?” and additional questions followed on the answers the applicant gave. In those answers, the applicant referred to his having been beaten in 2005. In response to the question, “How many times has this type of thing happened”, the applicant answered:
In Vanuniya that is only once and after that 2009 the CID person interrogate me and in 2011 CID people interrogate me. In 2009 they did not hit me.
[32] CB13
In these circumstances, it was reasonable for the Tribunal to have expected the applicant to mention during his Entry Interview his having been detained with his aunt, had that incident in fact occurred, and to have considered his not having mentioned that incident to be relevant to the Tribunal’s not accepting the applicant’s later claim that such incident did occur.
The second difficulty with the applicant’s submissions is they implicitly assume the applicant’s answer to question 6 of the IMAEI form did relate to the incident in which the applicant had been detained with his aunt, except that the applicant did not mention the aunt because the question related only to the applicant’s being detained. That assumption is incorrect. The answer the applicant gave related to his being detained in 2011 when he was waiting to be collected by his karate instructor. The applicant did not refer to his having been detained immediately before he left for Qatar in 2006 or 2007.
In my opinion, it was reasonably open to the Tribunal to proceed on the basis that, if, as the applicant in his statutory declaration claimed, the applicant and his aunt were detained, the applicant would have made that claim during the Entry Interview. Therefore it was reasonably open to the Tribunal to rely on the applicant’s not having made the claims at the Entry Interview, together with the other matters on which it relied, for not accepting the applicant’s claims to be credible.
Ground 1, therefore, fails.
Ground 2 – failure to consider claims
Ground 2 is as follows:
The Tribunal’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error when it found that whilst the Applicant would be arrested and detained upon return to Sri Lanka without putting these matters to the Applicant; the tribunal has fallen into jurisdictional error when it failed to address/consider the impact of the Sri Lankan law in aiding illegal departure/the impact of illegal departure and thereby failed to consider integers of the Applicant’s claim. The Tribunal has failed to ask correct questions and/or take into account relevant considerations or give realistic considerations.
Particulars
2.1The Tribunal did not properly consider the Applicant’s his ability to secure bail;
2.2The Tribunal did not consider the Applicant’s special circumstances where the Applicant has assisted in illegal departure: in particular;
(a)assisting with illegal departure;
(b)Applicant’s illegal departure.
2.3The Tribunal has presumed that the Applicant would be released on bail without addressing how the Sri Lankan law (CB209-210) making the appropriate findings as to the application of the law to the Sri Lankan law to the Applicant’s special circumstances.
2.4The Tribunal has failed to take into account relevant consideration the law that applied to persons that assisted on the boat.
2.4[sic] The Tribunal has failed to ask correct questions/or failed to take into account relevant and [sic] fallen into error.
This ground makes a number of broad and specific claims. First, it claims the Tribunal did not put to the applicant “these matters”, namely, the possibility of the applicant’s being charged and detained if he were to return to Sri Lanka. That claim is incorrect. Paragraph 54 of the Tribunal’s reasons for decision records the following:
a)The Tribunal referred to reports that indicated that, on their arrival in Sri Lanka, involuntary returnees are processed by officers from the Department of Immigration and Emigration, the state intelligence service, and the airport CID. The returnees are checked against various databases.
b)Persons who are suspected of having committed an offence of leaving Sri Lanka unlawfully are charged under the IE Act.
c)If a magistrate or court is not available it may be that people who are charged may spend up to several days in custody, and be held in jail conditions.
d)A report prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) recorded that DFAT had been informed by the Sri Lankan authorities that no returnee who was a passenger on a people smuggling venture has been given a custodial sentence, but has instead received fines that ranged between Rs.5,000 and Rs.50,000.
e)The report from DFAT indicated that most returnees are immediately granted bail on the personal recognizance of the returnees with the requirement that a family member at as guarantor.
Second, ground 2 claims the Tribunal did not properly consider the applicant’s ability to secure bail. That, too, is incorrect. The Tribunal’s reasons record the Tribunal “raised with the applicant whether there were any reasons why a family member would not act as a guarantor and/or collect him from court if he was given bail”.[33] After recording further discussion on this topic the Tribunal’s reasons record the following:[34]
The Tribunal said having regard to the applicant’s evidence about remaining in contact with his family and having been previously assisted by his uncle that it would be reasonable for the Tribunal to assume that he would continue to get support from his family in relation to bail guarantor and collection from court issues if he returned to Sri Lanka.
[33] CB295, [54]
[34] CB295, [54]
Third, I assume the expression “special circumstances” in paragraph 2.1 of the particulars to ground 2 is intended to refer to the applicant’s claims that he assisted in steering the boat on which he travelled to Australia and, for that reason, he will be treated differently from other returnees. The Tribunal did consider that claim. The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s claims that, although the applicant was not a member of the crew of the boat, he steered the vessel between five to six hours each day for 18 days.[35] The Tribunal’s reasons record the applicant was asked whether he had been paid or whether he had received any discount for the fee he paid to come to Australia, and whether he had been charged in Australia as a people smuggler. The applicant answered these questions in the negative.[36] In a later part of its reasons, the Tribunal records it considered the applicant’s claim that he may be at risk if he returned to Sri Lanka because he could be perceived to be a member of the crew of a people smuggling boat as a result of his having steered the boat. The Tribunal, however, was not satisfied there was a real chance the applicant would be punished as a crew member. The Tribunal relied on the applicant’s evidence that he was asked to steer three days after the journey began, the applicant received no reward or financial incentive for his activity, the applicant did not join the boat as a member of the crew, other passengers undertook the activity, and the applicant was not charged in Australia with any offences of being a member of a people smuggling crew.[37]
[35] CB286, [28]
[36] CB286, [28]
[37] CB300, [66]
Fourth, the applicant claims the Tribunal presumed the applicant would be released without addressing how the law of Sri Lanka would apply to the circumstances of the applicant. I do not accept that claim. As I have already noted, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s circumstances when considering whether the applicant would be able to obtain bail. And as I have also noted, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s claims that he was at greater risk than other returnees because he steered the boat.
Fifth, the applicant claims the Tribunal failed to take into account “the law that applied to persons that assisted on the boat”. The applicant does not identify the law the Tribunal failed to take into account. In any event, as I have already noted, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s claim that he was at greater risk as a returnee because he steered the boat.
For these reasons, therefore, ground 2 also fails.
Ground 3 – incorrect construction of “intentionally inflicted” harm or suffering
This ground, which it is not necessary to set out, claims the Tribunal applied an incorrect construction of “significant harm”, as that expression is used in s.36(2A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act), when considering whether there is a substantial risk the applicant will suffer significant harm if he is remanded in prison if he returns to Sri Lanka while awaiting bail. Subsection 36(2A) of the Act defines “significant harm” as constituting any one of the five harms it identifies, one of which is the non-citizen being “subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment”. The expression “cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment” is defined in s.5 of the Act to mean various forms of suffering or pain that is “intentionally inflicted”. The applicant submits the Tribunal applied the construction given to that expression by the Full Federal Court in SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.[38] The Full Federal Court construed “intentionally inflicted” to mean the “actual subjective intention by the actor to bring about the victims’ pain and suffering by the actor’s conduct”.[39]
[38] [2015] FCAFC 175
[39] [2015] FCAFC 175 at [15]
The applicant accepts that ground 3 cannot succeed in the face of the Full Federal Court’s decision in SZTAL, but formally submits the Full Federal Court’s construction is incorrect. An appeal against the Full Federal Court’s construction has been heard by the High Court who has reserved its decision.[40] The Minister, on the other hand, submits that even if the High Court overturns the Full Federal Court’s construction of “intentionally inflicted”, it cannot be inferred from the Tribunal’s decision that it misconstrued the expression “intentionally inflicted”. The Minister further submits the Tribunal made “a separate and independent finding which is a complete answer to the applicant’s complementary protection claim, finding that it was not satisfied that a ‘short period in detention on remand pending a bail decision would involve a real risk of significant harm to the applicant’”.[41]
[40] SZTAL; SZTGM v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor [2017] HCATrans 68 (5 April 2017)
[41] First Respondent’s outline of submissions, [21]
The Tribunal applied the words of the Act. It is, therefore, not readily apparent what construction the Tribunal applied in arriving at the conclusion that it did. It may well be that even if the High Court overturns the Full Federal Court’s construction of “intentionally inflicted”, the High Court might construe “intentionally inflicted” in a manner which at the very least raises a question about whether the Tribunal applied the construction the High Court may find is the correct construction. For that reason, I do not accept the Minister’s submission that the Tribunal’s finding is “a complete answer” to ground 3.[42]
[42] First Respondent’s outline of submissions, [21]
Disposition
The applicant has failed on all three grounds stated in the amended application. I propose, therefore, to order that the application be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding forty-two (42) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Manousaridis
Date: 19 May 2017
0
2
2