BCO15 v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 2613

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BCO15 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 2613

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Migration and Refugees Division) – Protection (Class XA) visa – whether the Tribunal misapplied the well-founded fear test – whether Tribunal erred in making adverse findings of credit against the applicant – no jurisdictional error identified – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36(2)(a), 36(2)(aa), 476

Applicant: BCO15

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1687 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 23 September 2015

Date of Last Submission: 23 September 2015

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 23 September 2015

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondents: Mr M Glavac
Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. The name of the Second Respondent be amended to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the filing of any further document in this regard is dispensed with.

2. The application is dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $6825.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1687 of 2015

BCO15

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for a Constitutional writ within the Court’s jurisdiction under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 in respect of a decision of the Tribunal made on 29 May 2015 affirming a decision of the delegate not to grant the applicant a protection visa.  The applicant was found to be a citizen of Sri Lanka and his claims were assessed against that country as the receiving country. 

2. The applicant claimed that he had a well-founded fear of convention-related persecution because of his membership of the Karuna group or other groups, because of his Tamil ethnicity, place of origin, imputed as pro-LTTE or anti-government profile because of his ethnicity, illegal departure from Sri Lanka and application for asylum in Australia and as a failed asylum seeker and in relation to his ability to return to his home area.

3. The Court made orders on 30 July 2015 fixing the matter for hearing and providing an opportunity to file an amended application, further affidavits and submissions by the applicant.  No such documents were filed.  The grounds of the application are as follows:

   1. The RRT erred in law, and the error is a jurisdictional error, in misapplying the well-founded fear test.

   Particulars

   The Tribunal failed to find a Convention nexus that the Applicant belonged to a particular social group of young Tamil Males from the north and east and therefore will face persecution on return to Sri Lanka.

   The Tribunal failed to find that the Applicant will face persecution as he has been imputed with the LTTE political opinion.

4. In support of the applicant’s application and in answer to the first respondent’s submissions, the applicant identified the circumstances in which he left India and returned to Sri Lanka.  The applicant also identified that he had a family member who had been involved in the LTTE in relation to his fear of returning to Sri Lanka.  The applicant also made reference to a letter that was written by his cousin who he had described as his elder brother and who was now living in London which had been provided to the Tribunal.

5. This was a case where the Tribunal made adverse findings in relation to the applicant’s credit.  The Tribunal identified the applicant’s claims and did not accept that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution.  Relevantly, in paras.7 and 8 as follows:

   7. The Tribunal has considered express, implied and possible claims arising on the evidence made by the applicant, sourced from his statement, his agent on his behalf in oral/written submissions, his documentary evidence provided. as well as from his earlier interviews. These are referred to below. By way of background, the Tribunal notes that his main claims related to harm feared as a result of his time spent in India and subsequent treatment in Sri Lanka as a former refugee from India; targeting by the authorities, Karuna Group and greasemen upon return to Sri Lanka from India; and later he claimed to fear harm due to his relationship to, and time spent with, a cousin involved with the LTTE, as well as fears relating to his illegal departure from Sri Lanka and his current travel to Australia, and his return to [Y].

   8. For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, nor that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Sri Lanka, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal has accordingly affirmed the decision of the delegate to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

6. The Tribunal proceeded to set out in detail the claims and evidence of the applicant. The Tribunal summarised the relevant law within annexure A referred to in para.2 of the reasons which correctly identified the principles relating to a well-founded fear of persecution as well as identifying the PAM3 Ministerial Direction. There was an express reference to the taking into account of that PAM3 in para.169 in the second dot point.

7. The applicant was invited to attend a hearing consistent with the statutory regime which was postponed at the request of the applicant’s representative until 24 April 2015. The applicant attended on that date to give evidence and present arguments. Written submissions dated 9 April 2015 had been provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing and after the hearing further submissions were provided dated 1 May 2015. 

8. The Tribunal relevantly said:

   40. Having considered the relevant evidence, the Tribunal has serious concerns about the applicant's credibility and the veracity of his claims. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a witness of truth concerning matters central to, and related to, his claims of past persecution, his reasons for travelling to Australia, and his future fears. The Tribunal has made the adverse credibility finding for the reasons set out below.

9. The Tribunal then set out detailed reasons in relation to the applicant’s claims in relation to his cousin and the LTTE and made adverse findings which were clearly open on the material before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal turned to the issue of the applicant returning to Sri Lanka from India and the alleged incidents that were alleged to have occurred in June 2012.  Relevantly the Tribunal held:

   64. The Tribunal is not satisfied with the applicant's explanations, and it considers his return from India to Sri Lanka indicates that he had not previously suffered significantly, nor did he believe that he would suffer upon return. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant's family would not have known, or would not have informed him about the situation in his home area before his return. The Tribunal considers this undermines his claims that the situation was difficult for young Tamil males such as himself returning from India in 2010.

   …

   66. … The ·Tribunal considers the applicant's changing evidence undermines his credibility and his claims that the army attacked him and his friend in June 2012.

   …

   67. … The Tribunal also considers the applicant's changing evidence to be inconsistent with his statement, where he claimed to have remained at home for about 1 week or so after the incident, then he left for Australia. It is also inconsistent with his claim, as set out in the delegate's decision record that he resided in the same residence from birth till departure for Australia other than when he resided in India.

   68. The applicant told the Tribunal that his fear when he returns is that the authorities will arrest him and take him to the fourth floor of the CID because his cousin was with the LTTE and the applicant went to India with him, and they want to get information about his cousin, or to take revenge on the applicant in place of the cousin. However, the Tribunal considered that the claimed actions of the authorities were inconsistent with the claims that they were genuinely interested in obtaining information from the applicant (about his cousin or any other matter). or in banning the applicant for the reasons set out below:

   …

   73. …The Tribunal has considered this submission, however in light of its significant concerns about the applicant’s claims relating to his cousin, it is not prepared to accept that this supports the applicant's claims. In any event, the Tribunal notes that not only did the applicant return, he remained in Sri Lanka for almost 2 years, which as indicated above provided the authorities with sufficient time to show any interest in him.

   74. The Tribunal was concerned about the applicant's non-credible and changing evidence relating to being targeted by the Karuna group.

   …

   77. The Tribunal notes that the applicant originally said that his former friend was looking for him form 2010 to 2012 to harm him. The Tribunal considers the applicant’s changing evidence in response to its concerns undermines the applicant’s credibility. and his claim that a former friend from the Karuna group was looking for him to harm him.

   New claim that his friend Karen's brother was involved in the LTTE

   78. According to the applicant's statement, the incident of June 2012 occurred with his friend Karen. Karen’s name had been called out, and then they had both been knocked off their bikes, and were assaulted. In the delegate’s interview (as set out in the delegate's decision record), the applicant claimed for the first time that Karen's brother was LTTE. When the delegate put to the applicant that this had not been raised before, the applicant's response was that no one had asked him. Noting that this is the incident the applicant claimed made him leave Sri Lanka for the second time, the Tribunal considers his failure to mention this LTTE connection prior to the delegate's interview undermines his claim that he has a friend Karen's whose brother's was connected with the LTTE.

   79. The Tribunal’s concerns were heightened because at hearing, the applicant made no mention that Karen's brother was LTTE, despite being asked whether there was anything further he had not mentioned to the Tribunal in his evidence. When the Tribunal later raised this matter, and asked the applicant why he did not mention it, he said this was because he had not been asked. The Tribunal considers that if Karen's brother was LTTE the applicant would have mentioned this to the Tribunal.

   80. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a witness of truth.

10. The Tribunal noted the post-hearing submissions in relation to the experiences to which the applicant had been exposed in relation to assessing his credibility and, relevantly, the Tribunal found:

    83. … However, the Tribunal is not persuaded that these matters can overcome the difficulties with the applicant’s evidence as referred to above.

11. The Tribunal identified the applicant’s provision of a statement from a person claiming to be the applicant’s cousin which the Tribunal analysed in some detail and relevantly found:

    86. The Tribunal considers that the statement from the claimed cousin is a mere assertion from an unknown person. The Tribunal put to the applicant at hearing that documents could be provided by anyone; in the circumstances, including a lack of any identity or supporting documents or explanation as to why these have not been provided to the Tribunal, concerning this claim which is said to be so important, the Tribunal is not prepared to give the post-hearing statement or information about the claimed cousin any weight.

    87. It was submitted by the agent that the applicant's association with his cousin would place the applicant at risk of harm upon return to Sri Lanka, and that although there may be concerns with aspects of the applicant's evidence, this does not mean that all claims or evidence should be rejected, as a portion could be accepted. The Tribunal has considered this submission, however it does not accept that the correspondence supports that the applicant has a cousin with whom he lived in India who was involved with the LTTE and has been granted refugee status in the UK.

    Credibility summary

    88. Considered cumulatively, the concerns the Tribunal holds about the applicant's credibility as discussed above lead the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant is not a witness of truth and the applicant has exaggerated and fabricated accounts of events, as well as claimed fears, upon which he has based his protection claims.

12. It was in these circumstances the Tribunal found:

    90. On the basis of the adverse credibility finding and its rejection of the documents produced from London as containing true information, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant had a cousin who was involved in the LTTE, nor that the applicant, his cousin (or any other relative) was suspected of being involved in the LTTE. The Tribunal does not accept any claimed events or suspicion occurred because of a relative's involvement with the LTTE. The applicant also does not accept that he had a friend whose brother was involved with the LTTE.

    …

    96. The Tribunal finds that the Sri Lankan authorities were aware of the applicant's return to Sri Lanka from India, that they were aware he had fled to India during the conflict, and that he had been recognised as a refugee there, and that the applicant chose to return home, as did many other Ta1nils from India after the conflict. The Tribunal finds that the applicant was of no interest to the Sri Lankan authorities for any reason upon his return to Sri Lanka from India, nor was he imputed with an LTTE profile because he was in India. This is consistent with the country information set out in the delegate's decision record provided to the Tribunal by the applicant; namely that (as at 2012) the Sri Lankan government actively concentrated on a massive resettlement and development drive to encourage and assist returnees from India. Both the Sri Lankan government and UNHCR have assisted and continue to assist voluntary repatriations. Returns from India are voluntary as India does not return Sri Lankan refugees involuntarily. Tamils in India comprise the largest refugee group in camps globally. Both the governments of India and Sri Lanka do not consider such persons as having LTTE links as a matter of course (although that is not to discount that some refugees in India may have been former LTTE members or were associated with the LTTE). Both Sri Lanka and India have come to understand that the diaspora in Tamil Nadu is a Tamil problem where people took refuge fleeing attacks .... and not an LTTE problem. There is no evidence of a presumption of LTTE engagement attached to persons who have been Sri Lankan Tamil refugees in India as some time or other. Some of the largest numbers of returnees have been back to [Y].

    97. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant faced any difficulties upon his return from India.

    …

    101. On the basis of the adverse credibility finding, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant had any encounters or incidents with the authorities after his return to Sri Lanka from India; and specifically, the Tribunal does not accept that the event of 18 June 2012 occurred, nor that there was an increased presence of authorities in his area thereafter.

    The Karuna Group

    102. On the basis of the adverse credibility finding, the Tribunal does not accept that he was searched for, summonsed, threatened by. or feared harm at the hands of, anyone in the Karuna group.

    103. … The Tribunal has not accepted that the applicant had any adverse encounter with the authorities nor with anyone else or groups (such as Karuna or greasemen) in Sri Lanka, after he returned from India. It is further not prepared to accept that he became of adverse interest to the authorities or anyone else at any time while he was in Sri Lanka.

    …

    105. …The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant suffered harm (in the form of discrimination or otherwise) upon return to Sri Lanka from India.

    …

    107. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant fled Sri Lanka for Australia in fear of his life or because he was in danger or because he was targeted for harm by anyone, any groups, or any authorities. The Tribunal has considered the agent's submission that his family may not have told him about people looking for him, so there could have been more instances than that referred to by the applicant; however the Tribunal does not accept that anyone has had any adverse interest in the applicant while he was in Sri Lanka, or since he left Sri Lanka.

13. In relation to the applicant’s feared harm, upon return to Sri Lanka, the Tribunal held:

    108. In the oral/written submissions, it was claimed that the applicant would suffer harm not only for reason of his ethnicity being Tamil, but also because of his imputed political opinion, such opinion being anti-government and pro-LTTE, arising as a result of having a family member who was a member of the LTTE, his Tamil ethnicity, his youth, his former residence in the east of Sri Lanka, as well as his membership of a particular social group including relatives of former LTTE members, Sri Lankan refugees returning from India to Sri Lanka, and returned, failed asylum seekers of Tamil ethnicity from Australia.

    109. The Tribunal has not accepted any of the applicant’s claims in relation to past harm (other than before the conflict ended, which the Tribunal does not consider relevant to the issue of future harm). The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has otherwise ever previously come to the adverse attention of the Sri Lankan authorities or any groups or organisations nor that he has ever had any previous past political involvement. It does not accept there is any reason, at the time he left Sri Lanka in June 2012, for him to be imputed with an anti-government opinion, nor to have been suspected of any involvement with the LTTE. It does not accept, on the basis of the adverse credibility finding, that there was a clash and that the authorities only arrested the Tamils (including the applicant's brother) and not the Sinhalese, or that the applicant’s brother was arrested because he looks like the applicant, or that his brother was detained or questioned about him, nor that anyone else has shown any adverse interest in the applicant. It will now consider the fears and claims, and the country information, in relation to future harm.

    110. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it had considered the relevant country information and that it did not appear that he faced a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm, for the many reasons raised by him. He disagreed, and said that there are lots of problems, a lot of people suffer in Sri Lanka, Tamils are not respected and he wants to live in peace and he is being a good citizen in Australia. The Tribunal has considered all of the claim, evidence and submissions, and relevant country evidence, in making its findings concerning future harm.

14. The Tribunal turned to the issue of the applicant’s claim concerning the Karuna Group and relevantly held:

    112. There is no credible evidence before the Tribunal that the Karuna group or any other state sponsored or affiliated group has targeted or held any adverse interest in the applicant because of his ethnicity or any other aspect of his profile such as being a returnee; nor does the Tribunal accept that there is any credible evidence before it to suggest that any such group will seek for any reason to cause the applicant harm. The Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance of serious harm from the Karuna group or any other state-sponsored or affiliated group.

1. In relation to the applicant’s ethnicity, place of origin, implication as LTTE anti-government because of this ethnicity, illegal departure from Sri Lanka and application for asylum in Australia, the Tribunal relevantly held:

   113. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant will face harm because of his Tamil ethnicity, and whether he will be imputed with a political opinion as anti-government/pro-LTTE, by virtue of his ethnicity, place of origin (in the east, [Y]), being a previous refugee returnee from India, illegal departure from Sri Lanka to Australia, failed application for asylum in Australia a western country, and return from Australia.

   …

   116. The Tribunal has not accepted that the applicant has any LTTE connections, nor that he has ever been suspected of LTTE involvement in the past. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has never been involved with, accused or imputed of being involved with, the LTTE in the past, it also does not accept that he has any family members or friends (such as Karen, or his brother) who have been involved with, accused or imputed of being involved with, the LTTE in the past.

   117. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant left Sri Lanka illegally. As noted in the DFAT Report and put to the applicant at hearing, there have been thousands of (failed) asylum seekers returned to Sri Lanka since 2009, including from Australia, the US, Canada, UK, and other European countries. The Tribunal thus accepts that there is a real chance (and risk) that the Sri Lankan authorities will assume that the applicant is returning involuntarily as a failed asylum seeker from Australia.

   …

   122. …The Tribunal has also considered the other more recent reports referred to; however, as explained below, the Tribunal is not satisfied that a person with a profile such as the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.

   …

   132. … The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is any reason for the applicant to be on the stop list, nor does it accept there is reason for the authorities to suspect the applicant is involved in separatist or criminal activities, nor that he is on a watch list. The Tribunal has found that the applicant was not questioned or harassed or harmed during the time he spent in Sri Lanka when he returned from India; the Tribunal does not accept on the evidence before it that there is a real chance or a real risk that he has been, or is, suspected of any involvement in the resurgence of the LTTE, including for the reason that he had previously been in India and has subsequently been in Australia, a western country where there is a Tamil diaspora. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that the applicant faces a real chance or a real risk of being on a stop list or watchlist or suspected of being involved in anti-government activities.

   133. … However, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it, and taking into account his profile, that the applicant faces a real chance or a real risk of being imputed with an anti-government political opinion, or being considered as someone who may be involved in reforming the LTTE or protest movements.

   134. …on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Sri Lankan authorities suspect failed asylum seekers of being persons of interest, or traitors, just because they travelled to a western country such as Australia to seek asylum. The Tribunal does not accept that anyone will consider that he has “run away” by coming to Australia by boat, and thus has something to hide.

   …

   138. …The Tribunal considers that having regard to the applicant’s profile, which is not within the parameters discussed, the credible available information indicates that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm, having regard to changed country conditions since the end of the conflict. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the basis of available country evidence that being a young, male Tamil, from [Y] who has travelled to a western country (Australia), and claimed asylum, leads to an imputation that the person is anti-government or has links with LTTE or other separatist organisations or the active political diaspora. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is credible country evidence before it to support the assertion that just because the applicant departed illegally and claimed asylum in Australia (and is a young, male, Tamil from [Y]), he will be imputed as having an anti-government opinion/LTTE opinion, or involvement in the reformation of LTTE or the politically active diaspora, or will be otherwise of adverse interest to the authorities.

   139. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has suffered har111 since the end of the conflict as a result of his ethnicity, gender, age, place of origin or as a returnee from India; nor does it accept that he has suffered harm because he has been imputed with any pro-LTTE or· anti-government political opinion; the Tribunal has not accepted that he has previously come to the adverse attention of the Sri Lankan authorities (or other organisations).

   140. The Tribunal does not accept that now, the Sri Lankan authorities treat every Tamil as a suspected LTTE member. While the Tribunal accepts that the authorities fear the regrouping or reformation of an entity similar to the LTTE, the Tribunal does not accept the claim that it is for this reason that any Tamil male is a suspect. Further, the Tribunal does not accept that he faces being suspected of involvement in the politically active Tamil diaspora. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will have an increased or “bigger” profile due to being a failed asylum seeker, who had already returned from India, given the significant numbers of failed asylum-seekers returned to Sri Lanka.

   141. Having regard to the country information, and the individual circumstances of this applicant, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he faces a real chance of persecution now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, or a real risk of significant harm, because of his Tamil ethnicity, his place of origin and return), that he will be suspected of links to the LTTE or other Tamil or anti-government organisations, or because he travelled to India then returned, then to Australia illegally by boat and is presumed to have claimed asylum. The Tribunal is not satisfied that these factors (as well as his youth and gender) whether individually or cumulatively, support a finding that there is a well-founded fear of persecution for the applicant.

2. The Tribunal then considered the processes the applicant would face upon return to Sri Lanka and held that the Immigrants and Emigrants Act (Sri Lanka) was not a law that was discriminatory or indicated a discriminatory intention and was not applied in a discriminatory manner. The Tribunal took into account the conditions to which the applicant would be exposed in the enforcement of that law and relevantly concluded:

   164. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims individually, and on a cumulative basis, having regard to the findings that the applicant is not a credible witness concerning past or future harm feared, as well as the relevant country information, other than those claims accepted above, the Tribunal rejects all the various claims made and finds that he does not have a well-founded fear of Convention-related persecution for any of the reasons put forward by him, or on his behalf.

3. The Tribunal then turned to the issue of complementary protection and relevantly concluded:

   173. … The Tribunal is satisfied that he will return and live with his family, and that he will be able to obtain work, noting he has previous work experience, as well as work experience from Australia. The Tribunal has not accepted that he has been previously discriminated against, harassed or harmed since the end of the conflict nor does it accept that he faces a real risk of being discriminated against, harassed or harmed, either at the hands of the authorities or any organisations or groups who work with them.

   174. For the reasons provided above. the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it, including the changed country conditions since the end of the conflict and the applicant's individual circumstances, that the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm from the Sri Lankan authorities, the Karuna group or any other state-sponsored or affiliated group or paramilitaries, or because he had previously returned from India, or because he is from [Y], or because he is a young male Tamil, or because he left Sri Lanka by boat and travelled to Australia where there is a Tamil Diaspora, and claimed asylum and will be returned as a failed asylum seeker. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real risk of being imputed with a profile which would draw the adverse attention of any of the authorities, persons or organisations or communities claimed, nor that he faces a real risk of being rounded up as a suspect, or harassed or detained by the authorities in his home area.

   175. The Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the factors contributing to the applicant's profile, whether individually or cumulatively, support a finding that there is a real risk of significant harm for the applicant.

   176. On the evidence before it, and for the reasons discussed above, and having considered the claims singularly and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, namely Sri Lanka, that there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not satisfy the requirements of s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

4. It was in those circumstances the Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia has a protection obligation and that the applicant did not meet the criteria under ss.36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa). In relation to the ground raised by the application, I accept the first respondent’s submission that the Tribunal plainly understood the correct test to be applied and did apply the correct test. The Tribunal correctly identified the relevant law in relation to a well-founded fear.

5. The particulars that the applicant provided in respect of the assertion of a jurisdictional error are, in substance, an impermissible challenge to the adverse findings made by the Tribunal and those adverse findings by the Tribunal were clearly open. It is clear that the Tribunal took into account the applicant’s ethnicity, age and area from which he came.  The adverse findings made at paras.118 to 140 and 141 and 164 and the adverse findings in relation to the applicant’s claim of being a young Tamil from a particular area were open on the material before the Tribunal.

6. It is clear the Tribunal also took into account the applicant’s fear of being imputed with an LTTE political opinion, relevantly, in paras.89 to 90, 116 to 117 and 138 and 164.  The adverse finding by the Tribunal in relation to the applicant’s fear in respect of being imputed with the LTTE political opinion was clearly open on the material before the Tribunal.  Nothing was said by the applicant to identify any jurisdictional error. The grounds in the application failed to identify any jurisdictional error.  The application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding twenty (20) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Associate: 

Date:  19 October 2015