BRR17 v Minister for Immigration
[2019] FCCA 222
•18 February 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| BRR17 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2019] FCCA 222 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – protection (class XA) visa – application dismissed. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) |
| Cases cited: CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 146 DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 2 |
| Applicant: | BRR17 |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | MLG 802 of 2017 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Mercuri |
| Hearing date: | 17 October 2018 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 17 October 2018 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 18 February 2019 |
REPRESENTATION
| Advocate for the applicant: | In person |
| Solicitors for the applicant: | None |
| Counsel for the respondents: | Ms Nicholson |
| Solicitors for the respondents: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
The name of the first respondent be amended to “Minister for Home Affairs”.
The application be dismissed.
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $5,000.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 802 of 2017
| BRR17 |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an application filed in this court on 21 April 2017 under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) in which the applicant seeks judicial review against the decision of the second respondent, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the tribunal”) made on
29 March 2017.
In its decision, the tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
(“the Minister”) made on 9 April 2015 refusing to grant the applicant a protection (class XA) visa (“the visa”).
Summary
For the reasons that follow, this application for judicial review fails.
I make the orders sought by the first respondent.
The applicant’s claims
The applicant, a national of Lebanon, applied for the visa on
17 December 2013.[1] The applicant’s claims were articulated in a statement accompanying the visa application and are summarised below.[2]
a)He belonged to the Lebanese Scouts Movement (“the LSM”) or Future Lebanon Scouts (“the FLS”) through which he assisted Syrian refugees. The LSM was a social and cultural organisation, with a political arm. The movement was supported by the late Prime Minister who was assassinated by the Hezbollah. Due to his involvement in the LSM, the applicant was followed by the Hezbollah, forced to give up his employment and was forced into hiding.
b)In 2008 the applicant was injured by the Hezbollah during a demonstration against the Syrian regime. His father and brother were also detained on two occasions and asked where the applicant was hiding. The applicant remained in hiding and returned to his home when he could.
c)In August or September 2013, the applicant became aware that the Hezbollah were trying to kill him because of his support for Syrian refugees. His mother had received a letter threatening the applicant’s kidnap and death. The applicant then left Lebanon.
d)There was fighting between the Alawite and Sunnis and whenever there was fighting many people died.
e)He feared harm in relation to the generalised violence and insecurity in Lebanon.
[1] Court book pages 1 to 26.
[2] Court book pages 27 to 28.
On 4 February 2015, the applicant attended an interview with the delegate.
On 9 April 2015, the delegate refused the visa application on the basis that they did not find the applicant to be a credible witness and did not accept his claims as genuine.[3]
[3] Court book pages 90 to 104.
The applicant submitted the following various documents in support of his application for a protection visa:
a)Copies and translations of his individual and family registrations.
b)Copy of a membership card for the Chamber of Commerce Industry and Agriculture in Tripoli.
c)Copy of a membership card for the FLS.
d)Copy of translation of an undated letter by the Union of Mayors of Al Kayteh-Akkar Prefecture of North Lebanon, addressed to “whom it may concern”, stating that the applicant has been working in Tripoli 'for many years' and like other Lebanese youth he is “suffering from the very bad security condition and deterioration in the country, especially in the city of Tripoli”. The letter states that the applicant:
...is known as partisan to a political party and practicing some social and sportive and cultural activities...he becomes aimed by and an object to the contrary parties. He is fearing from moving around and fearing to be treated with injustice leading to kidnap or murder (sic).[4]
e)Copies of translations of a Certificate of Attendance, Certificate of Merit and Certificate of participation issued by the Scouts of Future Lebanon between December 2007 and March 2008.
f)Copy of a translation of an undated letter by Mr Zaher El Kassar, Mayor of Bebnine, stating that the applicant is owner of a business, Al Wissam for Cars and Auto Parts, in Bebenin. He stated, “since a short while a sectarian group related to the Syrian system attacked his establishment many times and threatened him (sic)”. This resulted in the applicant closing his business and leaving Lebanon.
[4] Court book page 159.
On 22 April 2015, the applicant made an application for review to the tribunal.[5]
[5] Court book pages 105 to 111.
On 8 December 2016, the applicant appeared before the tribunal to give evidence and present arguments with the assistance of his representative and an Arabic interpreter.[6]
[6] Court book pages 127 to 129.
On 9 January 2017, the applicant’s representative provided a detailed post-hearing submission to the tribunal. The submission addressed a number of issues including credibility issues, inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence, claims of poor interpretation, and the applicant’s psychological state. In relation to the latter point, the submission also included as an attachment, a report from Mr Michael Bromhead, a counsellor, dated 3 January 2017.[7]
[7] Court book pages 130 to 151.
The tribunal’s reasons
On 29 March 2017, the tribunal affirmed the decision under review.[8]
[8] Court book pages 163 to 176.
The tribunal found the applicant had provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his political affiliations in his statement provided in support of the Protection visa application and at his interview with the delegate.[9]
[9] Court book page 168 at paragraphs [19] to [21].
When these inconsistencies were put to him, the applicant said that he was not in good psychological condition, did not have a lawyer and was fearful of what he needed to say or not say.[10]
[10] Court book page 168 at paragraph [22].
The tribunal had regard to the submission and the applicant’s statements in relation to the extent of the affiliation between the FLS and the Future Movement, and the explanation that the slight inconsistency in the applicant’s evidence should not undermine his credibility.[11]
[11] Court book page 168 at paragraph [23].
The tribunal formed the view that the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence on this issue “cast doubt on the veracity of his claims”.[12]
[12] Court book page 168 at paragraph [23].
The tribunal also found that the applicant had provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his activities and the reason why he was left Lebanon. In particular, there was an inconsistency as to whether he was assisting refugees or rebels, the latter which he claimed for the first time at the hearing.[13]
[13] Court book pages 168 to 169 at paragraphs [25] to [26].
When this inconsistency was put to him, the applicant said that when he initially came to Australia he was unsure what he should say “that would be in his interest”.[14]
[14] Court book page 169 at paragraph [27].
The tribunal did not find that the explanation provided by the applicant addressed its significant concerns in relation to the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence. The tribunal found that if the applicant had assisted the rebels in the way he claimed at the hearing it would have been reasonable for him to have raised those claims earlier.[15]
[15] Court book page 169 at paragraph [27] to [28].
The applicant also claimed that the interpreter assisting him at the interview was Iraqi and this resulted in some misunderstandings. The tribunal member listened to the audio of the interview and concluded that there was nothing which indicated that the applicant had encountered any difficulties. For this and related reasons, the tribunal did not accept this as a satisfactory explanation of the discrepancy in the applicant’s claims. The tribunal found that the interpreting did not deprive the applicant the opportunity of meaningfully presenting his case.[16]
[16] Court book pages 169 to 170 at paragraphs [29] to [31].
The tribunal found that the applicant had provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his claimed role and participation in demonstrations in Lebanon.[17]
[17] Court book page 170 at paragraph [32] to [35].
When this inconsistency was put to the applicant, he said that he had been forced to leave his brother’s home and he was under pressure. The tribunal did not accept the applicant’s explanation that his mind was confused at the time that he spoke to the person taking the statement, satisfactorily addressed the inconsistencies in his evidence.[18]
[18] Court book page 170 at paragraph [35].
The tribunal found that the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his own experiences in Lebanon. When this inconsistency was put to the applicant, he said that he had been forced to leave his brother’s home and he was under pressure. The tribunal did not accept the applicant’s explanation satisfactorily addressed the inconsistencies in his evidence.[19]
[19] Court book pages 170 to 171 at paragraph [36] to [39].
The tribunal found that the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to the experiences of his friends and/or acquaintances in Lebanon. The tribunal did not accept the applicant’s explanations satisfactorily addressed the significant inconsistencies in his evidence, which it found cast doubt on the credibility of his claims.[20]
[20] Court book page 171 at paragraph [40] to [43].
The tribunal found that the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to the experiences of his family members in Lebanon. It had regard to the applicant’s explanation that he had simply responded to the questions asked and his memory lapses were due to confusion. This was also addressed by the applicant’s representative in the submission to which the tribunal also had regard. However, the tribunal did not accept the applicant’s representative’s explanation and was of the view that had the applicant’s brother and father been detained twice the applicant would not have failed to disclose this claim in his oral evidence to the department or the tribunal. The tribunal found that this omission seriously undermined the credibility of his claims.[21]
[21] Court book pages 171 to 172 at paragraph [44] to [47].
The tribunal found that the applicant provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his residential address and employment. When these inconsistencies were put to him in the hearing, the applicant said that the documents he had were valid and also that the lawyer who assisted him was in a rush with his initial application.
The tribunal did not accept the applicant’s explanation, that his documents were valid, his lawyer was in a rush in preparing his application, and that he did not remember any dates at the time because his psychological condition was not good, satisfactorily addressed the inconsistencies in his evidence.[22]
[22] Court book page 172 at paragraph [48] to [51].
One of the documents submitted by the applicant, a letter from Mr Zaher El Kassar, contained claims about his business being attacked which he himself had not previously made. The tribunal found that the applicant’s response did not satisfactorily address its concerns and given it was inconsistent with the applicant’s own claims, the tribunal did not attach any weight to the letter.[23]
[23] Court book pages 172 to 173 at paragraph [52].
The tribunal considered the applicant’s explanation that his problematic evidence was due to his psychological condition and mental state and in particular considered Mr Bromhead’s report. However, the tribunal found that the report did not contain a clear diagnosis as to what psychological ailment the applicant was suffering from, or what ailment affected the applicant’s ability to “provide a consistent narrative of past experiences or to consistently recall information”.[24]
[24] Court book page 17 at paragraph [53] to [54].
The tribunal accepted that the applicant attended a number of counselling sessions; however it found that the report did not address the serious omissions, internal inconsistencies and inconsistencies between his written and oral evidence. The tribunal did not accept that the problems identified by the tribunal in the applicant’s evidence could be explained by reference to his state of mind following his arrival in Australia. The tribunal was not satisfied that significant weight could be attached to Mr Bromhead’s report as explanation for the problematic nature of the applicant’s evidence and the concerns identified by the tribunal. Although it was willing to accept that the applicant’s family conflict after his arrival in Australia caused him some distress, it did not accept that the problematic nature of his evidence could be addressed by the family discord.[25]
[25] Court book page 173 at paragraph [55] to [56].
The tribunal had regard to the applicant’s complaints that his application was rushed, he had poor legal representation and was provided with an Iraqi interpreter (who he could not understand) when communicating with his legal representatives. The tribunal noted that this issue was raised for the first time in the submission, and found that this belated explanation was a self-serving attempt to remedy the problematic nature of the applicant’s evidence and did not satisfactorily address the numerous inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence throughout the process.[26]
[26] Court book pages 173 to 174 at paragraphs [58] to [60].
On the basis of the above findings, the tribunal found that the applicant was not a credible and truthful witness. The tribunal found that the totality of the applicant’s evidence showed a propensity for the applicant “to fabricate claims and to tailor and shift his evidence in a manner which achieved his own purpose”.[27] The tribunal noted that it had considered the documents submitted by the applicant in support of his application, but for the reasons outlined above and given the fundamental lack of credibility within his evidence, it did not give them any weight.[28]
[27] Court book page 174 at paragraph [61].
[28] Court book page 174 at paragraphs [61] to [62].
The tribunal found that the applicant had fabricated his evidence in relation to the reasons why he left Lebanon and did not accept any of the applicant’s claims. The tribunal did not accept that the applicant had been harmed in the past or that there was a real chance that he would be subjected to serious harm in the future for reasons of his political opinion, religion, membership of a particular social group comprising his family or any other social groups, or for any Convention reason. Further, it found that there was not a real risk of the applicant suffering significant harm arising from his religion, his imputed political opinion, his familial links, his area of residence, or any other circumstances.[29]
[29] Court book pages 174 to 175 at paragraphs [63] to [64].
In relation to the applicant’s claim to fear harm in relation to general violence, political conflict and tension in Lebanon, the tribunal found that there was no persuasive evidence before it to suggest that tensions, lack of general security and any instability the applicant was concerned about was faced by him personally. The tribunal was not satisfied that the general security situation in Lebanon would mean that the applicant faced a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason.[30]
[30] Court book page 175 at paragraph [65].
The tribunal made reference to section 36(2B)(c) and noted, it was satisfied that, the tensions, lack of general security, and the instability the applicant faced was faced by the population in general and not him personally therefore it was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm in Lebanon as a result of a lack of general security and instability.[31]
[31] Court book page 175 at paragraph [66].
The tribunal was not satisfied that, the applicant faced a real risk, that he would be subjected to any form of harm that would be the result of an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental was intentionally inflicted on the applicant for the reasons specified in the definition of torture in section 5(1) of the Act. The tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm that would involve the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, either physical or mental to meet the definition of cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or degrading treatment or punishment in section 5(1).[32]
[32] Court book pages 175 to 176 at paragraph [67].
Therefore the tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant meets section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.[33]
[33] Court book page 176 at paragraphs [68] to [69].
Ground one
The applicant’s first ground of review was as follows:
The decision of the Tribunal is affected by an error of law in that the Member impermissibly made findings in regard to credit that were not substantiated by the evidence, in particular, by commencing its analysis by only assessing the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence.[34]
[34] Initiating application filed 21 April 2017.
At the hearing before me, the applicant was invited to explain in his own words why the tribunal’s decision was legally incorrect. In response the applicant, who was assisted by an Arabic speaking interpreter, said;
The member did not take into account, or did not consider the psychologist report … I find it completely unfair for the member not to take into account that report …, given the fact that I attended a number of sessions with the psychologist …
The member did not take into account or did not consider all the documents that I provided in support of my claims as evidence… [35]
[35] Transcript at page 8 at lines 10 to 21.
In relation to ground one, the first respondent submits that fact finding itself can only be impugned where it lacks a logical and probative basis: CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 146.
It was further submitted on behalf of the Minister that to establish jurisdictional error based on illogical or irrational findings of fact or reasoning, “extreme” illogicality must be demonstrated, “measured against the standard that it is not enough for the question of fact to be one on which reasonable minds may come to different conclusions”.[36]
[36] DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 2.
In DAO16, the full court of the Federal Court set out the applicable principles as follows:
(1)While findings as to credit are generally matters for the administrative decision maker, this does not mean that such findings as to credit are beyond scrutiny on judicial review. … The question of whether a credibility finding is tainted by jurisdictional error is a case specific inquiry, and is not assessed by reference to fixed categories or formulae. … In each case it is necessary to analyse in detail what the decision-maker has decided …
(2)Without derogating from the case specific nature of the inquiry, adverse credibility findings may involve jurisdictional error on recognised grounds such as legal unreasonableness or reaching a finding without a logical, rational or probative basis … In this regard, Crennan and Bell JJ explained in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; 240 CLR 611 (SZDMS) that:
135 … A decision might be said to be illogical or irrational if only one conclusion is open on the evidence, and the decision maker does not come to that conclusion, or if the decision to which the decision maker came was simply not open on the evidence or if there is no logical connection between the evidence and the inferences or conclusions drawn.
(3)By way of example, in SZRKT at [78], Robertson J considered that jurisdictional error may be established where a finding of credit on an objectively minor matter of fact constitutes the basis on which the decision-maker rejects the entirety of an applicant’s evidence and claims. …
(4)Findings or reasoning along the way to reaching a conclusion by the decision-maker that are illogical or irrational may establish jurisdictional error …
(5)A high degree of caution must, however, be exercised before finding that adverse findings as to credit expose jurisdictional error in order to ensure that the Court does not embark impermissibly upon merits review. … As such, to establish jurisdictional error based on illogical or irrational findings of fact or reasoning, “extreme” illogicality must be demonstrated “measured against the standard that it is not enough for the question of fact to be one on which reasonable minds may come to different conclusions” … Thus “[e]ven emphatic disagreement with the Tribunal’s reasoning would not be sufficient to make out illogicality. …’ (emphasis in original)
The first respondent submits that far from reaching any threshold of illogicality, the tribunal’s credibility findings were clearly open to it and substantiated by the evidence.
Applying the standard in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 281-282, and having regard to the tribunal’s reasons, I find that the tribunal set out clearly and comprehensively in its decision record the evidence on which it relied to reach its findings that the claims made and evidence provided by the applicant in support of his claims were inconsistent. There is no illogicality or irrationality in the required sense to impugn the tribunal’s decision on this basis.
For example, at paragraph 19 of the tribunal’s decision record, the tribunal stated that the applicant had provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his political affiliations. It then went on to analyse in some detail the applicant’s evidence and the inconsistencies which arose from that evidence in relation to this issue at paragraphs 20 to 21.[37] The tribunal raised these inconsistencies with the applicant in the course of his interview[38] and the applicant also addressed this issue in his post hearing written submission.[39] The tribunal considered the applicant’s responses and explanations but concluded that it did not find his explanation satisfactory.[40] The tribunal went on to conclude that the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence ‘cast doubt on the veracity of his claims.[41]
[37] Court book page 168.
[38] Court book page 168 at paragraph [22].
[39] Court book page 168 at paragraph [23].
[40] Court book page 168 at paragraph [23].
[41] Court book page 168 at paragraph [23]
The tribunal similarly dealt with the inconsistencies in relation to the applicant’s activities and the reasons why he was targeted in Lebanon.[42] It is evident from the tribunal’s reasons that it considered the applicant’s and dismissed each of the explanations given by the applicant for these inconsistencies. The tribunal’s findings in this regard were clearly open to it.
[42] Court book page 168 at paragraphs [24] to [26]; page 169 at paragraph [26] to [30]; and page 170 at paragraphs [31] to [33].
The tribunal also addressed each of the following further inconsistencies in relation to:
a)his claimed role and participation in demonstrations in Lebanon;[43]
b)his own experiences in Lebanon;[44]
c)the experiences of his friends and acquaintances in Lebanon;[45]
d)experiences of his family members in Lebanon;[46]and
e)his residential addresses and employment.[47]
[43] Court book page 170 at paragraphs [32] to [35].
[44] Court book page 170 at paragraphs [36] to [39].
[45] Court book page 171 at paragraphs [40] to [43]
[46] Court book page 171 at paragraphs [44] to [46]; and page 172 at paragraph [47].
[47] Court book page 172 at paragraphs [48] to [51].
At paragraph 52 it discussed the letter from Mr El Kassar provided by the applicant in support of his claims. The tribunal noted that information contained in that letter was inconsistent with the applicant’s own evidence. It concluded that in view of this inconsistency, “the Tribunal does not attach any weight to the letter and its contents”. [48]
[48] Court book page 173 at paragraph [52].
In addition, the tribunal discussed the difficulties with the applicant’s evidence and the explanation put forward by the applicant by reference to his psychological wellbeing at paragraphs 53 to 56.[49] In the course of this discussion, the tribunal clearly had regard to the report put forward by Mr Bromhead. The tribunal identified a number of concerns it had about this report as providing an explanation for the inconsistencies given by the applicant in his evidence in support of his claim. The tribunal accepted that the applicant had attended for a series of counselling sessions at Foundation House. However it went on to say at paragraph 55:
Mr Bromhead’s report does not adequately explain the particular, serious deficiencies in the applicant’s evidence throughout the process, including significant omissions, internal inconsistencies and inconsistencies between his written and oral evidence. The Tribunal does not accept that the problems identified by the Tribunal in the applicant’s evidence can be addressed by reference to his state of mind following his arrival in Australia. The Tribunal is not satisfied that significant weight can be attached to Mr Bromhead’s report as an explanation for the problematic nature of the applicant’s evidence and the concerns identified by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is of the opinion that the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence cast serious doubt on the truth of his claims.[50]
[49] Court book page 173.
[50] Court book page 173.
The tribunal also accepted that the applicant had some conflict with his brother and sister in law after his arrival in Australia but did not accept that this explained the ‘problematic nature’ of his evidence.[51]
[51] Court book page 173 at paragraph [56].
The tribunal also considered the applicant’s claims that some of the inconsistencies in his evidence could be explained by the difficulties he experienced with the interpreter services he received. The tribunal did not accept that the standard of interpreting at interview explained the inconsistencies in his evidence.[52]
[52] Court book page 173 at paragraph [57].
Nor did the tribunal accept the applicant’s claims that the inconsistencies in his claims and evidence was explained by the fact that his application for a protection visa had been ‘rushed’ by his former representative. Having regard to the fact that the applicant had the assistance of a registered migration agent and that his application was filed a week before Christmas, the tribunal did not accept that the applicant’s explanations adequately explain the numerous inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence throughout the process.[53]
[53] Court book page 174 at paragraph [60].
After this detailed an comprehensive analysis and having considered the responses provided by the applicant to the various concerns raised with him about the state of his evidence, the tribunal concluded that:
a)it did not find him to be a credible and truthful witness;
b)that the inconsistencies in his evidence were not ‘insignificant’; and
c)the totality of the applicant’s evidence shows “a propensity to fabricate claims and tailor and shift his evidence in a manner which achieves his own purpose”.[54]
[54] Court book page 174 at paragraph [61].
The tribunal also considered the documents put forward by the applicant but gave them no weight given its conclusions about the fundamental lack of credibility in his evidence.
Moreover, the tribunal concluded that the applicant had manufactured evidence in relation to why he had left Lebanon and on this basis it did not accept many of his claims.[55]
[55] Court book page 174 at paragraph [63]; and page 175 at paragraphs [63] to [65].
I therefore find on the basis of this analysis of the tribunal’s reasons, that there is relevant evidence and an intelligible justification to support the tribunal’s rejection of the applicant’s claims, and that the tribunal’s findings in relation to the inconsistencies in the applicant’s claims and evidence and its ultimate adverse credibility findings were open to it based on an evaluation of the evidence before it.
The tribunal’s reasons are detailed and comprehensive. The findings made by the tribunal were reasonably open to it on the basis of the material before it. The tribunal put the concerns that it had to the applicant and gave him an opportunity to address those concerns. He took that opportunity both at the hearing itself and also by putting in detailed post hearing submissions.
A fair reading of the tribunal’s reasons do not disclose any illogicality in the sense required to establish a jurisdictional error.
For these reasons, ground one is not made out.
Ground two
The applicant’s second ground of review was as follows:
I have made an application for assistance through Victorian Legal Aid and am waiting for a decision.[56]
[56] Initiating application filed 21 April 2017.
The first respondent submits that ground two is not a ground of review but rather a statement regarding the applicant’s application for legal assistance. Ground two should be dismissed.
Ground two does not disclose any possible jurisdictional error and is therefore not made out.
Conclusion
As neither of the grounds have been made out, there is no jurisdictional error established by the applicant and the application should be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding sixty-three (63) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Mercuri
Associate:
Date: 18 February 2019
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Immigration
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
1
3
2