Boyadjian v Minister for Immigration

[2019] FCCA 3176

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BOYADJIAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2019] FCCA 3176

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – application for an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa – whether the Tribunal correctly identified and applied the relevant law – whether the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations – whether the Tribunal’s decision was legally unreasonable – no jurisdictional error made out – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 359A, 476

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) reg 1.15AA, sch 1 cl 836.221

Applicant: TAMAR BOYADJIAN

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 3414 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 5 November 2019

Date of Last Submission: 5 November 2019

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 5 November 2019

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person.

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr P Knowles

Solicitors for the Respondents: Mills Oakley

ORDERS

1. The name of the first respondent is changed to “Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs” and the Court dispenses with the need for the filing of any further document in that regard.

2. Leave is granted to the applicant to rely upon the amended application filed on 4 November 2019.

3. The amended application is dismissed.

4. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $7,206.00.

DATE OF ORDERS: 5 November 2019

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3414 of 2016

TAMAR BOYADJIAN

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

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 (Cth) (“the Act”) in respect a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 8 November 2016 affirming the decision of a delegate not to grant the applicant an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa.

2. The applicant is a citizen of Lebanon. On 3 June 2015, the applicant lodged an application for an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa in relation to her aunt, being the sponsor, who suffers from a number of conditions. On 9 March 2016, a delegate found that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for the grant of an Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa. On 28 March 2016, the applicant applied for review of the delegate’s decision.

3. By letter dated 8 September 2016, the applicant was invited to attend a hearing on 8 November 2016. The letter identified that, on the material before the Tribunal at the time, the Tribunal was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The letter invited the applicant to provide further documents by 1 November 2016.

4. On 4 November 2016, submissions on behalf of the applicant were provided to the Tribunal. It also appears that further documents were provided to the Tribunal, being statutory declarations by the sponsor’s siblings dated 3 November and 6 November 2016 and a report from Dr Sahagian dated 2 November 2016.

5. On 8 November 2016, it also appears that the applicant appeared before the Tribunal with other medical evidence in relation to the sponsor’s conditions.

6. The transcript of the hearing has been tendered into evidence. The transcript identifies the Tribunal raising with the applicant the Tribunal’s concern in relation to whether the sponsor’s needs could be met by other relatives in Australia and by other organisations. The transcript of the hearing identifies the Tribunal expressing concern as to the adequacy of the evidence that had been put on by the applicant in respect of the criteria to be met. At the hearing, the applicant had a migration agent present and the sponsor also gave evidence.

7. In the course of the hearing, the Tribunal referred to not making a decision at the end of the hearing. It is apparent from the face of the Tribunal’s reasons that the decision was not given at the end of the hearing but was given later that day, being 8 November 2016, at 1:12 pm.

8. A fair reading of the transcript identifies the Tribunal’s concerns as to the inadequacy of the evidence that had been provided by the applicant. The transcript identifies the Tribunal giving the applicant an opportunity to speak to their migration agent so that the migration agent may tell the applicant what documents they needed to be providing. At the end of the transcript, it is apparent that the Tribunal also gave the applicant and the migration agent a further opportunity to engage with the Tribunal by stating that, if there was nothing else, then the Tribunal would conclude the hearing. The Tribunal also identified that it intended to make its decision as quickly as it could.

9. The Tribunal also referred to the material provided by the applicant on the day of the hearing, which it had not had an opportunity to read. The Tribunal did not know whether that material was 100 pages. It is apparent that the material comprised the statutory declarations, doctor’s report and medical records which the Court has referred to above and which totalled less than 100 pages.

10. On the face of the evidence before the Court, the Court is satisfied that the applicant had a real and meaningful hearing before the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s reasons identified the background to the application for review, referred to the applicant’s appearance to give evidence and present arguments at the hearing on 8 November 2016 and identified the applicant’s representation on that occasion by a registered migration agent.

11. The Tribunal referred to the relevant provisions in respect of sch 1 cl 836.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (“the Regulations”). The Tribunal found that the applicant was a relative within the requirements of the definition of “carer” in reg 1.15AA of the Regulations.

12. The Tribunal found that the carer certificate provided met the requirements of reg 1.15AA(2) of the Regulations and addressed each of the matters required under regs 1.15AA(b) and (c) of the Regulations. The Tribunal referred to the medical reports which were provided and was satisfied that the requirements of reg 1.15AA(1)(ba) of the Regulations were met. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the sponsor met the level of impairment required under reg 1.15AA(1)(c) of the Regulations.

13. The Tribunal correctly identified that reg 1.15AA(1)(e) of the Regulations requires that the assistance cannot reasonably be provided by any other relative of the resident, being a relative who is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen or obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia. The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s claims that there were no relatives available to provide assistance to the sponsor. The Tribunal also referred to the report of Dr Sahagian, which was provided on the day of the hearing, referring to the applicant providing the carer service to the sponsor but noted that it does not indicate that alternative support has not been considered.

14. The Tribunal did not consider the medical reports to be probative evidence that no support is available from anyone other than the applicant. In that regard, the Tribunal referred to the carer certificate and the reference to the sponsor reporting receiving regular support from her neighbours and sister.

15. The Tribunal referred to what occurred at the hearing in relation to exploring with the applicant the support able to be provided by the sponsor’s other nieces and nephews and the inability of the applicant’s two brothers and sister to provide assistance. The Tribunal also referred to the evidence in relation to the sponsor’s other nieces and nephews having families. The Tribunal identified that it did not consider that having children and family responsibilities necessarily precludes those persons from being able to provide some degree of assistance

16. The Tribunal also correctly identified that the care need not be provided by a single person but may be provided collectively. Further, the Tribunal correctly identified that the care does not have to be able to be provided on a 24-hour basis by a single carer. The Tribunal referred to the sponsor’s evidence that relatives visit rarely and do not wish to help but found that there was little probative evidence that the other relatives are unable or unwilling to help or that such help cannot reasonably be obtained from them.

17. The Tribunal referred to the evidence in relation to having approached other organisations and the sponsor’s need for assistance in the night. The Tribunal did not accept that no organisation, including a nursing organisation, is able to assist at night. The Tribunal noted that the applicant asserts that the sponsor refuses to leave her home and needs to communicate with someone in Armenian. In that context, the Tribunal referred to there being an Armenian nursing home which might satisfy these needs and there being no evidence provided that the sponsor cannot be admitted to that institution.

18. The Tribunal also referred to the written submissions provided by the applicant in respect of contacting other organisations and found that no evidence had been provided in respect of the applicant having contacted these organisations. The Tribunal found that the applicant’s written submissions appear to contradict the applicant’s oral evidence that no other organisations have been contacted. The Tribunal referred to the absence of evidence in relation to responses from these organisations and, given the purpose of those organisations, the Tribunal was not prepared to accept the applicant’s assertion that assistance is not available from the identified organisations. The Tribunal also identified that the applicant had not provided any evidence of what other organisations, if any, had been contacted.

19. The Tribunal found that it is not sufficient to meet the requirements of reg 1.15AA(1)(e) of the Regulations to contact a hospital and two aged care facilities interstate if assistance cannot be provided by these agencies. The Tribunal referred to there being many organisations and that there may be organisations which provide care that is culturally appropriate. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant made adequate inquiries. The Tribunal was also not satisfied that, on the evidence before it, assistance cannot reasonably be provided to the sponsor by another organisation.

20. The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s evidence in relation to the sponsor’s need for moral and emotional support. The Tribunal accepted that the sponsor requires such support but correctly identified that the issue in the present case is whether the requisite support can be provided by others.

21. The Tribunal referred to having explored with the applicant whether the sponsor’s family can provide financial assistance. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence provided by the applicant as to the financial circumstance of the sponsor’s other nieces and nephews. The Tribunal was not satisfied that they have no financial capacity to contribute to the cost of a carer.

22. The Tribunal identified and ultimately formed the view that the presented evidence was insufficient to satisfy the Tribunal that assistance cannot reasonably be provided by the sponsor’s other relatives. The Tribunal found that it was not sufficient for the applicant to state that such relatives are unwilling to care due to other commitments. The Tribunal identified there being little other evidence about those commitments. The Tribunal was not satisfied that any such commitments would preclude the sponsor’s other relatives from providing at least a degree of care. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the sponsor’s other relatives are unable to contribute financially to the cost of a full-time nurse.

23. The Tribunal accepted the applicant’s evidence that the sponsor needs emotional support but was mindful of the applicant’s and the sponsor’s evidence that the sponsor’s sister, nieces and nephews visit her regularly and that that may suggest such support is being provided by the family. The Tribunal accepted that, due to various health concerns, family and work commitments, none of the sponsor’s relatives in Australia can act as a full-time carer for her. The Tribunal also accepted that the sponsor requires a carer and that, at present, the care is being provided by the applicant.

24. The Tribunal, however, was not satisfied that the sponsor’s relatives in Australia, in particular her fifteen nieces and nephews other than the applicant who reside in Sydney, are unable or unwilling to provide care to her. The Tribunal also noted that their inquiry is not limited to what assistance can be obtained from one relative. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the sponsor’s family cannot contribute financially to hire a carer to supplement the care the family can provide. The Tribunal was also not satisfied that the combination of such care arrangements would be inadequate or inappropriate.

25. The Tribunal was not satisfied that assistance for the sponsor cannot reasonably be provided by any other relative or obtained from welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia. In these circumstances, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria in reg 1.15AA(1)(e) of the Regulations and affirmed the decision under review.

Before the Court

1. These proceedings were commenced on 5 December 2016. On 30 March 2017, a Registrar of the Court made orders giving the applicant an opportunity to file an amended application, affidavit evidence and submissions. The applicant provided submissions, albeit on 25 October 2019, and, pursuant to leave, filed an amended application on 4 November 2019.

2. At the commencement of the hearing, the Court explained to the applicant the nature of the hearing and the applicant confirmed to have understood the nature of the hearing as explained by the Court.

3. From the bar table, the applicant put submissions suggesting that she had asked the Tribunal for an opportunity to put on further documents. That is not reflected by the transcript.

4. In substance, the applicant said nothing from the bar table which identified any jurisdictional error but identified remarks upon the written submissions which had been filed. The written submissions filed on behalf of the applicant addressed grounds 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of what was the original application. The Court granted leave for the applicant to rely upon an amended application. There is a disconnect between the amended application and the submissions.

The grounds

1. The grounds of the amended application are as follows:

   1. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal’s) decision is affected by error of law as it denied the applicant explanation as to why community services are not available and nephews and nieces who hardly see the Australian Aunt cannot assist or offer the needed care.

   2. The Tribunal interviewed the sponsor and the applicant on the 8 November 2016 and on the same date gave the decision, it means the decision was prepared to refuse and the Member ignored the evidence given on the same day 8 November 2016.

   3. The Tribunal misapplied the law and failed to see that the care needed cannot be provided neither by community services nor family members.

   4. The Tribunal made a jurisdictional error because it misconstrued clause 836.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 and reg 1.15AA of the Regulations, and thereby made an error of law and asked itself the wrong question.

   Particulars

   a. Clause 836.221 required that at the time of the decision, the applicant is “a carer” of the Australian relative (“resident”), not “the carer” as the Tribunal wrongly stated at [5]. The distinction is important because the regulation comprehends that a person can be a “carer” and not be the exclusive person providing care to the resident.

   b. The Tribunal applied the wrong test at paragraph [25] and concluded that it is not satisfied that the sponsor’s relatives in Australia are unable to or unwilling to provide care to the sponsor. The Tribunal misdirected itself because the Tribunal instead of asking itself whether relatives are unable to or unwilling to provide care, it should have directed itself asking whether the relatives can reasonably expect to provide care. It is submitted that the Tribunal applied high standard and therefore, its decision is infected with a legal error.

   5. The Tribunal failed to provide information under section 359 A to the applicant. The Tribunal failed to comply with s359 A of the Act in respect of information that it considered would be there reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. That information was not put to the Appellant for her comments. The Tribunal raised concerns which seriously undermined the credibility of the appellant on the basis of following ‘information’ which should have been put formerly under section 359 A to put on notice to the applicant that such information would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review and the applicant should have been advised that he can either orally comment or request additionally time to respond in writing.

   Particulars

   a. The Tribunal noted that there is an Armenian nursing home which would satisfy the sponsor’s need. However, the Tribunal failed to provide the details of the nursing home and invited the applicant to provide her response under section 359 A of the Migration Act 1958.

   6. The Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by misconstruing r.1.1.15AA(1) of the Act and/or when it asked failed to ask the correct question and ignored relevant considerations and/or took into account irrelevant considerations/constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction.

   Particulars

   • The Tribunal failed to consider sponsor’s emotional attachment to her home and due to the emotional attachment, she refuses to go to nursing home.

   • Applying incorrect test and/or ignoring correct test that the cultural situation warranted involvement of female members of the sponsor’s family.

   7. The Tribunal’s decision is infected with a legal for its failure to ask relevant questions.

   Particulars

   The Tribunal in its decision at para 17 noted that the relatives would be able to provide ‘some degree of assistance’. However, the Tribunal failed to consider whether the relatives even taking cumulatively would be able to provide substantial and continuing assistance to the sponsor. It is respectfully submitted that the Tribunal failed to ask following relevant questions:

   • Whether the relatives would be able to provide substantial and continuing assistance?

   • Whether the relatives would be able speak Armenian language?

   8. The decision of the Tribunal is unreasonable.

   Particulars

   a. The Tribunal in para 21 notes that by contacting one hospital and 2 aged homes not sufficient enough to say that assistance cannot be provided by these organizations. There is no regulations defines that how many hospital and nursing homes, the applicant needs to contact to satisfy the Tribunal. The Tribunal failed to explain and provide reasons why contacting a hospital and 2 nursing home would not be enough to satisfy the Tribunal.

   b. During the hearing the Tribunal advised that there is no evidence before it is to satisfy why the sponsor’s nephews and nieces would not be able to provide financial support. Then the applicant advised the Tribunal that the she would be providing further evidence to the Tribunal. The Tribunal advised the applicant that she could speak to her agent to decide what documents she needs to provide to the Tribunal. The Tribunal conducted the hearing on 08 November 2016 at 8.15 am and the decision was taken at 1.12 p.m. The Tribunal advised the applicant to speak to her agent to provide further documents, however, it did not provide adequate and reasonable time to consult with her agent to provide evidence in support of her case. It is reasonable to assume that since the Tribunal had advised the applicant, she could speak to her agent to provide further evidence, the Tribunal would provide a reasonable opportunity and time to consult with her agent and to provide further documents. However, the Tribunal did not provide any reasonable time and decided the matter under 3 hours after the hearing which is not a reasonable time to consult and provide documents. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal is unreasonable and infected with a legal error.

Ground 1

1. In relation to ground 1, the applicant asserts that the Tribunal’s decision was affected by error because it did not accept the explanations advanced by the applicant. This is, in substance, an invitation to the Court to engage in merits review. It is apparent that the Tribunal correctly identified the relevant law and made adverse findings. Those adverse findings were open to the Tribunal for the reasons summarised above. The applicant’s disagreement with the adverse findings does not identify any jurisdictional error. No jurisdictional error is made out by ground 1.

Ground 2

1. In relation to ground 2, the applicant alleges that the Tribunal’s decision was the subject of predetermination because it was delivered on the same day as the hearing. It is apparent from the hearing record that the hearing concluded approximately two hours before the Tribunal made its decision. Given the limited information that was provided on the day of the hearing and the express reference to the same in the Tribunal’s reasons, there is no basis to find that the Tribunal did not have a real and active intellectual engagement with the applicant’s evidence and submissions.

2. The delivering of the decision on the same day is not conduct by reason of which a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal might not bring an independent and impartial mind to the determination of the matter on its merits. Nor is there anything said in the transcript that identifies conduct by reason of which a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal might not bring an independent and impartial mind to the determination of the matter on its merits.

3. Further, on the evidence before the Court including the transcript and the detailed reasons by the Tribunal, the Tribunal approached the review with an open mind reasonably capable of persuasion as to the merits. There is no basis, on the evidence before the Court, to find that the Tribunal member had predetermined the matter. Nor is there any basis to find that the Tribunal member ignored the evidence which was adduced on 8 November 2016. The Tribunal’s reasons are to the contrary of this assertion. No jurisdictional error is made out by ground 2.

Ground 3

1. In relation to ground 3, this is asserted as a misapplication of a law and an assertion that the care cannot be provided by family members and the community services. This is, in substance, an invitation to the Court to engage in merits review. The Court has no power to review the merits. The applicant’s disagreement with the adverse findings does not identify any relevant error. On the face of the Tribunal’s reasons, the Tribunal correctly identified the relevant law. No jurisdictional error is made out by ground 3.

Ground 4

1. In relation to ground 4, the applicant alleges that the Tribunal misconstrued the relevant provision because of a reference in paragraph 5 to the carer. The Tribunal correctly identified the relevant law and correctly identified applying the relevant tests in paragraphs 25 and 27 of the Tribunal’s reasons. There is no basis to find that the Tribunal confined itself to an erroneous concept or that the carer must be the exclusive person providing care to the sponsor. No jurisdictional error is alleged in ground 4a is made out.

2. In relation to ground 4, the applicant also alleges that the Tribunal asked itself the wrong question by reference to paragraph 25 of the Tribunal’s reasons. At paragraph 25, the Tribunal referred to not being satisfied that the sponsor’s relatives in Australia and, in particular, her fifteen nieces and nephews who reside in Sydney are unable or unwilling to provide care to her. That reference is part of the Tribunal’s reasoning but does not identify an incorrect application of the relevant tests, which are correctly identified in paragraphs 14 and 26. No jurisdictional error arises by reason of ground 4b.

Ground 5

1. In relation to ground 5, the applicant alleges that the reference to an Armenian nursing home in paragraph 19 of the Tribunal’s reasons is information of a kind enlivening obligation under s 359A of the Act. The Court does not accept that the reference to an Armenian nursing home is information in itself that contradicts, undermines or negates the applicant’s claims so as to give rise to any obligation under s 359A of the Act.

2. The Court is of the view that the reference to an Armenian nursing home falls within section 359A(4)(a), is not specifically about the applicant or another person and is just about a class of persons of which the applicant or other person is a member. Accordingly, no obligation under s 359A of the Act was enlivened.

3. Further, the Court accepts the first respondent’s submission that the Tribunal made an independent finding that it was not satisfied assistance cannot reasonably be provided by other relatives. The Court accepts the first respondent’s submission that, even if there was an issue in respect of compliance with s 359A of the Act, given the independent finding above, there can be no jurisdictional error. No jurisdictional error is made out by ground 5.

Ground 6

1. In relation to ground 6, this is a general assertion of ignoring relevant considerations or taking into account irrelevant considerations. There is no substance in the contention that the Tribunal ignored the sponsor’s emotional needs. The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s evidence in relation to the sponsor’s desire not to leave her home, as summarised above. There is no irrelevant consideration that has been identified which the Tribunal took into account and there is no relevant consideration identified that the Tribunal failed to take into account.

2. The assertion that the applicant’s family’s cultural situation involved a requirement for female members of the family to be carers is, in substance, an invitation to the Court to engage in merits review and does not identify any relevant error by the Tribunal.

3. Moreover, it is not apparent that any submission or evidence was adduced that the care was required to be given by a female relative. An issue not raised before the Tribunal is not capable of giving rise to a jurisdictional error. There is no basis to find that the Tribunal applied the wrong test in determining whether the applicant met the criteria. No jurisdictional error is made out by ground 6.

Ground 7

1. In relation to ground 7, this refers to part of the Tribunal’s reasons in paragraph 17 and the reference to relatives providing some degree of assistance. It is clear that, from reading the Tribunal’s reasons as a whole and without a keen eye for error, the Tribunal correctly identified the relevant test and made adverse findings which were open to the Tribunal in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of its reasons. No jurisdictional error is made out by ground 7.

2. The proposition that the relatives would be able to speak the Armenian language is also not an issue on its face which appears to have been raised before the Tribunal. An issue not raised before the Tribunal is not capable of giving any rise to any jurisdictional error. Whether the sponsor’s relatives could provide the necessary support in respect of the requirements in reg 1.15AA(1)(c) of the Regulations was the issue addressed by the Tribunal and no jurisdictional error arises by reason of the penultimate rhetorical question posed at the bottom in ground 7.

Ground 8

1. In relation to ground 8a, the applicant alleges that the Tribunal’s reasoning in relation to the adequacy of the evidence in respect of other organisations was unreasonable. The Tribunal provided an evident and intelligible justification for the adverse findings in respect of the inefficacy of the evidence provided by the applicant. Further, the outcome is not one in respect of which no reasonable decision-maker could not come to. Accordingly, no jurisdictional error as alleged in ground 8a is made out.

2. In relation to ground 8b, this appears to be an allegation of a denial of procedural fairness in relation to an opportunity for the applicant to provide further documents. For the reasons already given, in summarising what occurred at the hearing, the applicant had a real and meaningful hearing. The Court is satisfied that it was clear and apparent that the Tribunal was not satisfied with the adequacy of the material that had been provided by the applicant. The Court is also satisfied that there was a real opportunity for the applicant or the representative to seek such an opportunity if they so chose. It is also apparent on the transcript that no such application was made. There was no denial of procedural fairness in the conduct of the review and there was no legal unreasonableness with the Tribunal having clearly identified that it would make its decision as quickly as possible and proceeding to make a decision of the day of the hearing. Accordingly, no jurisdictional error as alleged in ground 8b is made out.

3. The Court has separately addressed the written submissions by the applicant as follows.

4. In relation to the submissions in respect of ground 1, the applicant repeated an alleged error by reason of a reference to a carer which, for the reasons already given, does not make out any jurisdictional error. Insofar as the particulars refer to not applying the correct test, it is apparent that the Tribunal correctly identified the relevant law. The submissions in relation to ground 1 do not make out any relevant error.

5. In relation to the submissions in respect of ground 2, the Court has addressed the reasons why there was no information enlivening an obligation under s 3; 9A of the Act and why, in any event, there was an independent finding by reason of which, if there would be such error, it would not amount to a jurisdictional error. The submissions do not support any error as alleged in ground 2.

6. In relation to the submissions in respect of ground 3, for the reasons already given, no irrelevant consideration has been identified that the Tribunal took into account and no relevant consideration has been identified that the Tribunal failed to take into account. Ground 3 in the submissions, including the particulars, does not identify any jurisdictional error.

7. In relation to the submissions in respect of ground 4, the applicant contends that the Tribunal failed to ask the correct questions and refers to the sponsor’s relatives providing some degree of assistance in paragraph 17 of the Tribunal’s reasons. On a fair reading of the Tribunal’s reasons as a whole, the Tribunal correctly identified the relevant law and correctly applied the same. For the reasons already given, ground 4 does not identify any relevant error by the Tribunal.

8. In relation to the submissions in respect of ground 5, the submissions in support of unreasonableness refer to the Tribunal’s reasoning in paragraph 21 of its reasons and seek to take issue with the Tribunal’s adverse reasoning. There was no easily ascertainable information in respect of a critical fact or material fact that could give rise to any obligation upon the Tribunal to make an inquiry. The applicant’s submissions in relation to ground 5 are, in substance, an invitation to the Court to engage in merits review. Nothing in the applicant’s written submissions on the amended application make out any jurisdictional error.

9. Accordingly, the amended application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding fifty-four (54) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street delivered in open Court on 5 November 2019 and the parties were provided sealed copies of the Court’s orders.

Associate:

Date: 5 December 2019