ATB15 v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 3189

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ATB15 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 3189

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – application for a Protection (Class XA) visa – application filed out of time – extension of time granted – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36(2)(a), 36(2)(aa), 46A, 424A, 424AA, 476, 477(1), 477(2), 499, 499(2A)

Immigrants and Emigrants Act 1949 (Sri Lankan), s.45(1)(b)

SZBYR v The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 235 ALR

Applicant: ATB15

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: PEG 208 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Hartnett

Hearing date: 19 November 2015

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 1 December 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Robertson

Solicitors for the Applicant: AUM Legal

Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms Tattersall

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. Pursuant to s.477(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) there is granted an extension of time to the Applicant to file his Application.

2. The Application is dismissed.

3. The Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $6,825.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

PEG 208 of 2015

ATB15

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Before the Court is an application for an extension of time to make an application for judicial review under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’) of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (as it then was) (‘the Tribunal’) dated 31 March 2015, which affirmed a decision of a delegate of the First Respondent to refuse to grant the Applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa (‘the visa’).

2. The application was filed on 12 May 2015. This placed the application outside the 35 day period specified in s.477(1) of the Act in which an application of this type should be filed. The Applicant was seven days out of time and requires an extension of time pursuant to s.477(2) of the Act. Whilst that section provides that the Court may in certain circumstances order that the 35 day period be extended, the First Respondent submitted that it was not appropriate in this case to do so because the substantive application did not have merit.

3. The Applicant swore an affidavit in support of his application for an order pursuant to s.477(2) of the Act. That affidavit was affirmed by him on 11 August 2015. It sets out the understanding of the Applicant, and the basis for that understanding, that he had until 13 May 2015 to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal. He had been advised by lawyers acting for him at the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre Inc by correspondence of 1 May 2015, that he was required to file his application by 13 May 2015. He lodged his application on 12 May 2015, in fact.

4. The period of delay is minimal.  I am satisfied the reason for the delay has been satisfactorily explained in the Applicant’s affidavit, and the prejudice to the First Respondent in allowing the application is minimal.  The extension of time is a discretionary matter for the Court with the Court required to be satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to make the order. The remaining consideration for the Court as to that, is whether or not the substantive application has merit.

5. I accept the argument of Counsel for the Applicant that the grounds of application as contained in the amended application filed by the Applicant and dated 11 August 2015, contain matters arguable before the Court, and conclude that in the interests of the administration of justice an extension of time should be granted in these proceedings. 

6. The amended application contains some five grounds of application.  I will not herein set out ground 5 which was not pressed by the Applicant’s Counsel and nor grounds (a) and (c) of ground 3, which were likewise not pressed by the Applicant’s Counsel. Neither ground 5 nor grounds (a) and (c) of ground 3 have merit.  The remaining grounds are as follows:-

   “Ground 1

   1. The Tribunal denied the applicant procedural fairness by relying on country information which post-dated the review hearing, without permitting the applicant to consider and/or make submissions in relation to that material.

   Particulars

   (a) The country information was the DFAT Country Report Sri Lanka dated 6 February 2015 (‘Country Information’);

   (b) The Country Information was not, at any stage, put to the applicant;

   (c) The content of the Country Information was not, at any stage, put to the applicant;

   (d) The applicant was not invited to make submissions in relation to the Country Information;

   (e) The Tribunal did not warn the applicant that it intended to rely on the Country Information; and

   (f) The Country Information did, or was likely to, have a material effect on the conduct of the review.

   Ground 2

   2. The Tribunal made a jurisdictional error by denying the applicant procedural fairness and/or by failing to take into account a relevant consideration.

   Particulars:

   (a) At the hearing, the applicant referred to two newspaper articles in the Australian and ‘Morning Herald’ on the day of the hearing before the Tribunal; 

   (b) The Articles dealt with claims of extended detention and torture;

   (c) The Tribunal indicated to the applicant’s representative that it would “definitely have a look at those”; and

   (d) On a fair reading of the Tribunal’s reasons, either those articles were not viewed, as the Tribunal had indicated it would, or not taken into consideration.

   Ground 3

   3. The Tribunal made a jurisdictional error by denying the applicant procedural fairness relating to findings of fact.

   Particulars

   (a) …

   (b) The Tribunal found that the letter produced by the applicant from Sangeeth was not authentic, without putting such a proposition to the applicant for comment or contradiction.

   (c) …

   Ground 4

   4. The Tribunal failed to comply with Ministerial Direction Number 56 in contravention of s.499(2A) of the Migration Act 1958.

   Particulars

   The Tribunal failed to take into account the PAM 3 Protection Visas complementary protection guidelines when making findings as to whether the treatment that the applicant would face on being detained in Sri Lanka was degrading treatment or punishment or was cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

   Ground 5

   …

7. The Applicant otherwise relied upon his affidavit affirmed on 11 August 2015 and the affidavit of Patricia Ng Phaik Kim affirmed on 23 July 2015. The Applicant also relied upon written submissions dated 25 September 2015. The First Respondent sought dismissal of the application with costs. The First Respondent relied upon written submissions dated 29 October 2015. The contents of the Court Book was also evidence before the Court.

Background

1. The Applicant is a Catholic Sinhalese male born and raised in Duwa Village, Negombo, Western Province, Sri Lanka.  Prior to arriving in Australia, he owned a boat and worked as a fisherman in Duwa selling fish at a local market. 

2. Although the Applicant is a holder of a Sri Lankan passport, he departed Sri Lanka unlawfully from Negombo Bay and travelled to Australia by boat with 39 other people from his home area. He arrived as an unauthorised maritime arrival in Australia on 23 July 2012. He took part in an entry interview on 20 September 2012 after the Minister lifted the bar under s.46A of the Act on 18 September 2012. The Applicant lodged an application for the visa on 4 December 2012.

3. In departing Sri Lanka unlawfully, the Applicant is in breach of the Sri Lankan Immigrants and Emigrants Act 1949 (‘the Immigrants and Emigrants Act’).  Under s.45(1)(b) of the Immigrants and Emigrants Act, it is an offence to depart other than by an official port of entry or exit, such as a seaport or airport.

4. The Applicant claims to fear returning to Sri Lanka on the basis of his imputed or actual political opinion as a United National Party (UNP) supporter; his imputed or actual political opinions resulting from his membership of the Fisheries Unions; and his status as a failed asylum seeker.

5. As accurately set out in the First Respondent’s written submissions, the claims of the Applicant were otherwise:-

   “6. In terms of previous harm the applicant claimed that from August to October 2011 he assisted Sangeet, a UNP candidate for the town council elections, by putting up posters, attending meetings, hanging up banners and distributing leaflets. He claimed that whilst putting up posters and hanging banners with others, “we” got caught up in an argument with supporters of the People’s Alliance Party (the Alliance) and were beaten up.  The members of the Alliance also threatened that they would catch them later if they continued to put up posters. The group advised Sangeet of the altercation and stayed at his house for two days for safety.  The applicant then returned home and stayed there until the election on 8 October 2011, at which he attended, voted and distributed cards with Sangeet’s name to voters with instructions on how to vote.

   7. The applicant claimed that, while staying at Sangeet’s house, and again after the election, he and others, including Sangeet, received threatening phone calls that he believed were from the Alliance.  He further claimed that, on 15 October he was attacked and beaten up by a group of unknown persons whilst walking home alone from a party and that the threatening phone calls began again about 2 weeks after the assault.

   8. The applicant further claimed that in early 2012 he attended a rally against the rise of fuel prices.  He claimed people came to his house after the demonstration and spoke to his parents noting that they had seen him at the demonstration, and advised that he should not participate in any more demonstrations.  He claimed his brothers also received threatening phone calls to stop him from participating in politics and that he had problems with his job, as people were told not to buy his fish.”[1]

   [1] First Respondent’s written submissions filed on 29 October 2015 at [6] – [8].

The Proceedings before the Tribunal

1. On 14 October 2013, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision. The delegate refused to grant the visa because he did not accept the majority of the Applicant’s claims.

2. On 25 November 2014, the Applicant’s representative provided a submission in support of the Applicant’s application, along with a statement of the Applicant and other documentary material.

3. On 1 December 2012, the Applicant attended a hearing before the Tribunal to present arguments and give evidence. He was assisted by an Interpreter in the Sinhala and English languages. He was represented by his registered migration agent.

4. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Applicant was permitted to provide further information to the Tribunal by 5 December 2014, and did so.  The Applicant provided a letter of support from Mr Sangeeth Perera.

5. On 31 March 2015, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision not to grant the Applicant the visa and published its statement of decision and reasons (‘the decision record’). The Tribunal notified the Applicant of the decision on or around 8 April 2015.

The Tribunal Hearing

1. The Tribunal found as follows:-

   a)the Applicant’s evidence about his political involvement in Sri Lanka was vague, inconsistent and lacking in detail;

   b)whilst it accepted that the Applicant and his family were low-level ordinary supporters of the UNP, it did not accept that the Applicant was an active member or that he was assisting a UNP candidate in the 2011 election or at any other time;

   c)the Applicant’s evidence about the assaults and threats he received pre and post election the Tribunal found to be vague and lacking in credibility, and ultimately, the Tribunal did not accept the Applicant was attacked by United People’s Freedom Alliance (UFPA)/ Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) supporters or received threatening telephone calls, due to his limited involvement with the UNP and lack of profile;

   d)the Tribunal had concerns about the authenticity of a letter purportedly from the UNP candidate whom the Applicant claimed to be assisting.  This letter was an English translation of a letter of support from Mr Sangeeth Perera on 5 December 2014, which was drawn to the attention of the Tribunal member on 8 December 2014. The Tribunal said, as to the letter, the following:-

   “57. In post-hearing submissions the Tribunal was provided with an undated letter purporting to be issued by “Sangeeth Perera”, UNP candidate Municipal Council Elections.  The letter claims the applicant is an “active member of the village community”.  The letter states that Municipal Council Elections were held on 8 November 2011 and Perera was nominated candidate for the UNP for the Duwa Electorate and had the support of many young people.  The letter repeats the applicant’s evidence at the hearing.

   58. The Tribunal has concern about the authenticity of the letter.  Firstly, the letter is titled “With regard to J.M.T  Salinda Peiris”,  however the letter in fact refers to a different person: “J.M.H Madushanka Peiris Fernando”.  Secondly the letter refers to the Municipal Council elections as being held on 8 November 2011 however country information confirms that in 2011 the elections were held on 8 October 2011.

   59. The Tribunal has considered the following information prepared by regarding (sic) the UK Border Agency, Country of Origin Report which quotes a letter from British High Commission in Colombo dated 14 September 2010 regarding forged and fraudulently obtained documents in Sri Lanka:

   “…there are numerous agents throughout the country who advertise employment or studies abroad, and will provide the entire package of forged documents to support applications for passports and/or visas.  Apart from birth certificates, these can include forged passports, identity cards, educational certificates, work references, bank statements, sponsorship letters, etc…”

   “The high level of corruption in Sri Lanka and the unscrupulous actions of government officials at all levels, somewhat undermines the issuing process for many official documents.  It is common knowledge that persons can obtain an ID card or passport in any identity they want to with the right contacts.  The Visa Section at this mission regularly see forged education certificates, bank statements, employment references etc, yet they rarely see forged Sri Lankan passports or ID cards.  The reason for this is that the genuine documents are so easy to obtain fraudulently, there is no need to forge them.  It is suspected that there are many more ID cards in circulation than the actual total population of Sri Lanka.”

   60. No evidence has been provided regarding the providence of the letter.  The letter is undated and is inconsistent with the applicant’s evidence at the hearing that he was not an active member of the UNP.  The body of the letter refers to the applicant by a different name.  The Tribunal also finds the letter of little assistance in supporting the applicant’s claim.”[2]

   e)the Tribunal did not accept the Applicant had any involvement in the local elections held on 8 October 2011, and it did not accept the Applicant was related to the UNP candidate.  Further, the Tribunal did not accept the Applicant attended political rallies and put up election posters and therefore did not accept the Applicant was of any interest to the UPFA/SLFP because of his imputed or actual political activity in Sri Lanka;

   f)the Tribunal did not accept the Applicant had a profile as a trade union activist or organiser or that he would be perceived by the authorities as anti-government.  It did, however, accept that as a fisherman, the Applicant may have taken part in a protest with other fishermen over the increase in fuel prices, and he may have contacted friends to see if they were attending the rally, but did not accept that he was an organiser or activist.  It further did not accept that the Applicant received threatening phone calls due to his taking part in the rally;

   g)as a result of the above findings, the Tribunal did not accept there was a real chance that the Applicant would be persecuted by members and supporters of the UPFA/SLFP or any other party opposed to the UNP.  The Tribunal further did not accept that the Applicant would be persecuted by the Sri Lankan authorities because of his membership of the Fisheries Association or because he took part in a rally in 2012.

   [2] Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Record dated 31 March 2015 at [56] – [60].

2. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant’s fear of harm because of his actual or imputed political opinion in Sri Lanka was well-founded or that he would suffer a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence if the Applicant being removed from Australia to Sri Lanka. 

3. In relation to the Applicant’s return to Sri Lanka and his illegal departure, the Tribunal questioned the Applicant about his past conduct with the Sri Lankan authorities.  The Applicant said he had never been arrested, charged with criminal offences, or detained by the authorities in Sri Lanka.  The Tribunal discussed with the Applicant country information regarding what would likely happen to him on his return to Sri Lanka as a failed asylum seeker who departed Sri Lanka illegally. 

4. The Tribunal had regard to the Applicant’s evidence and the totality of matters put before it by the Applicant and noted that the Applicant was not a Sri Lankan Tamil and that he had no association with the LTTE.  He was a person from the majority Sinhalese ethnic group.  He was not a people smuggler and had no criminal convictions.  The Tribunal did not accept he had any profile with the Sri Lankan authorities.  The Tribunal found no evidence to indicate the Applicant had any adverse political profile as a supporter or member of the LTTE or as someone who was opposed to the government prior to his departure from Sri Lanka.

5. The Tribunal was not satisfied, having regard to all of the evidence, that there was a real chance the Applicant would be sought upon his return to Sri Lanka because of his being an ordinary UNP supporter, or that there was a real chance he will suffer serious harm because he is a Sinhalese male from the Western Province of Sri Lanka.  The Tribunal found that as a low level supporter of the UNP, the Applicant would be able to freely continue to support the UNP on his return to Sri Lanka.

6. The Tribunal considered the Applicant’s fear of harm on the basis of his membership of a particular social group, being a failed asylum seeker from a western country.  The Tribunal considered the situation both in terms of the Applicant’s immediate arrival, and following his arrival and resettlement in his village.

7. The Tribunal considered relevant country information. It accepted there were “reports that Sri Lankan failed asylum seekers have suffered abuse on their return to Sri Lanka”.[3] It considered the Applicant’s claims.  The Tribunal noted in paragraph 87 of the decision record that the information from DFAT, 2013 Country Information Report Sri Lanka, 31 July, indicates that allegations of mistreatment of returnees without LTTE links had not been substantiated.  The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not have an adverse political profile at the time of his departure from Sri Lanka. It found further that he was not suspected of any LTTE connections and that there was not a real chance he would be harmed for this reason upon his return to Sri Lanka.

   [3] Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Record dated 31 March 2015 at [84].

1. The Tribunal said, as to the Applicant’s illegal departure, the following (from the decision record):-

   “92. Persons suspected of illegal departure are taken to a court to apply for bail.  Bail is routinely given on the person’s recognisance, although a family member is also required to provide surety.  If the arrival occurs over a weekend or on a public holiday, the returnee is placed in a remand section of Negombo prison until a bail hearing is available.  The evidence before the Tribunal also indicates that the penalties imposed on returnees by the courts for illegal departure may take the form of fines or a custodial sentence.

   93. The Tribunal accepts, therefore, that the applicant will be questioned at the airport.  The Tribunal also accepts that there is a possibility he will be held for a limited period in remand whilst waiting bail, but DFAT has reported that returnees are transported by police to the Magistrates Court in Negombo at the “first available opportunity” and it is only if a magistrate is not available because of a weekend or a public holiday that those persons who are charged are taken to the nearby Negombo Prison. The Tribunal accepts that conditions in remand have been described in media reports as overcrowded and unsanitary with a lack of access to adequate food, water and a lack of access to assistance and limited reform regarding violence and maltreatment.  However, the Tribunal considers that the weight of the evidence indicates that returnees will most likely be held for only a short period in remand and will then be bailed.”

2. The Tribunal noted further in paragraph 95 of its decision record, relevantly:-

   “95. …DFAT was informed in March 2014 that no returnee who was just a passenger on a people smuggling venture had been given a custodial sentence for departing Sri Lanka illegally.”

3. And at paragraph 96 of its decision record:-

   “96. The Tribunal also considers that the independent evidence indicates that the applicant will not be subject to a custodial sentence and the prospect of him being detained for a prolonged period of time as a penalty for illegal departure is remote.”

4. In considering the complementary protection criteria, the Tribunal did not accept that any questioning, detainment or imposition of a fine amounted to significant harm and further did not consider that any pain or suffering whilst on remand was intended to cause harm. Accordingly, the Tribunal found the Applicant did not satisfy either s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act and the decision under review was affirmed.

Consideration

1. Dealing firstly with ground 4, the Court concludes that ground is not made out.  The Tribunal cannot be seen to have failed to take into account the PAM3 guidelines.  Indeed, in paragraph 19 of the Tribunal’s decision record the Tribunal said:-

   “19. 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 – PAM 3 Refugee and humanitarian – Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian – Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT Country Report Sri Lanka 16 February 2015) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.”

2. Section 499 of the Act states:-

   “(1) The Minister may give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under this Act if the directions are about:

   (a) the performance of those functions; or

   (b) the exercise of those powers.

3. Direction 56 issued under s.499 of the Act on 21 June 2013 relevantly states:

   “Where the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has prepared country information assessment expressly for protection status determination purposes, and that assessment is available to the decision maker, the decision maker must take into account that assessment, where relevant, in making their decision. The decision maker is not precluded from considering other relevant information about the country.”

4. On a fair reading of the Tribunal decision record, I accept the Tribunal has taken account of the guidelines as required.  The Tribunal’s conclusions as to complementary protection were open to it on the material before it and there was nothing illogical or unreasonable in the conclusions reached by the Tribunal. 

Ground 1

1. The claim made in ground 1 of the Applicant’s amended application cannot be made out.  The 2015 Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Country Report for Sri Lanka dated 16 February 2015 referred to in the decision record was not relied upon by the Tribunal in the process of its reasoning or to reach its conclusion.

2. Read as a whole, it is clear the Tribunal did that which it said it had done in paragraph 50 of the decision record, which was to accept and rely upon the guidelines of the UNHCR December 2012 Eligibility Guidelines for assessing the protection needs of asylum seekers from Sri Lanka which referred to a series of profiles which, whilst not intended to be exhaustive, indicated the categories of persons who the UNHCR considered may need international refugee protection depending on the individual circumstances of the case.  The Tribunal set out those categories of persons in paragraph 49 of the decision record.

3. The basis of the Tribunal’s rejection of the Applicant’s claims of political involvement, was the Tribunal’s adverse credibility findings in respect of the Applicant.  The 2015 DFAT Country Report had no bearing on those findings.  The Tribunal said “that it did not accept the applicant was of any interest to the UFPA and/or SLFP or the Sri Lankan government because of his imputed or actual political activity in Sri Lanka”.  There was thus no real chance that the Applicant would be persecuted upon return.

Ground 2

1. The First Respondent in submissions accepted that no direct reference was made in the Tribunal’s decision to the newspaper reports referred to by the Applicant’s migration agent at the conclusion of the Tribunal hearing.  The Applicant’s agent referred to two reports, one being in The Australian and the other in the Morning Herald.  The migration agent said:-

   “The one in 10 Australian today states that  talks about the recent (audible) asylum seekers and it says that one of the asylum seeker is still in custody after having been returned on 15 Nov and he also made allegations of torture and that is in Australian today.  There is also in the Morning Herald today which talks about the asylum seekers that were returned in July this year. The 41 15 (sic) asylum seekers.  It mentions them taken to court and the case will be heard next May 2015.”[4]

   [4] Applicant’s Outline of Written Submissions filed on 25 September 2015 at [50].

2. The Tribunal member responded to the above saying he will “definitely have a look at those [articles]”.  On a fair reading of the Tribunal’s decision, it is not apparent the Tribunal failed to have regard to the contents of those articles.  The Tribunal’s consideration of the matters raised in these articles appears throughout its decision record and as referred to in paragraphs 24 to 27 above.  It cannot be said that the Tribunal failed to consider the reports. Even if I am wrong about that, it cannot be said the Applicant suffered a lost opportunity to put any other information or argument to the decision-maker in circumstances where the Tribunal, in its decision record, effectively considered the submissions made by the Applicant that people had been harmed in Sri Lanka; that asylum seekers had made allegations of torture; and that asylum seekers had been held in custody for more than a short period of time. In the consideration of those matters the Tribunal made findings open to it on the evidence before it including that the Applicant would not be subject to a custodial sentence and the prospect of him being detained for a long period was remote.

Ground 3

1. The Applicant contends that the Tribunal did not put the Applicant on notice that the provenance of the letter tendered after the hearing, allegedly from Mr Perera, would be an issue, such that the Tribunal would also require submissions should be made as to the authenticity of the letter.  If the Tribunal had genuine concerns about the authenticity of the letter, it is argued by the Applicant, it should have put that to the Applicant on notice and sought a response.  In failing to do so, it denied the Applicant procedural fairness.

2. This ground also must fail.  What in essence the Applicant says is that he should have been given a further opportunity to provide further evidence by way of submissions or otherwise to explain evidence that he had placed after the hearing before the Tribunal, and being evidence which went to the reliability of the evidence given by him at the Tribunal hearing, and in his prior statements. 

3. The Applicant, given the delegate’s decision in particular, was acutely aware of the relevant issues for consideration, which included adverse credibility findings against him.  Further, the Tribunal had put the applicant on notice about its concerns as to forged documents coming out of Sri Lanka. 

4. I accept the submission of Counsel for the First Respondent that it cannot be said the Tribunal’s approach failed to comply with the requirements of s.424AA or 424A of the Act. “Information”, for the purposes of those sections, does not include the existence of doubts, inconsistencies or the absence of evidence.[5] Further, it “does not encompass the tribunal’s subjective appraisals, thought processes or determinations… nor does it extend to identified gaps, defects or lack of detail or specificity in evidence or to conclusions arrived at by the tribunal in weighing up the evidence by reference to those gaps...”[6]

   [5] SZBYR v The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 235 ALR 609 at [18].

   [6] SZBYR v The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 235 ALR 609.

5. No jurisdictional error attends the decision of the Tribunal. The Application must be dismissed.  Costs shall follow the event.

I certify that the preceding forty-two (42) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Hartnett

Associate: 

Date:  1 December 2015