CCU16 v Minister for Immigration

[2018] FCCA 1069

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CCU16 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2021] FCCA 1069

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Immigration Assessment Authority – protection visa – whether the applicant claimed he faced risks in Afghanistan as a student – whether the Authority considered the applicant’s claim that he faced risks as a person who had spent his formative years in a Western country and who might therefore be perceived as wealthy.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958, ss. 473DC, 473DD, 473GB(5)

Cases cited:
Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 236 FCR 593; (2003) 75 ALD 630; [2003] FCAFC 184.
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v MZYTS (2013) 230 FCR 431; (2013) 136 ALD 547; [2013] FCAFC 114.

Applicant: CCU16

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

File number: MLG 1641 of 2016

Judgment of: Judge Riley

Hearing date: 16 March 2018

Date of last submission: 16 March 2018

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 2 May 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the applicant: Catherine Symons

Solicitors for the applicant: Victoria Legal Aid

Counsel for the first respondent: Nick Wood

Counsel for the second respondent: No appearance

Solicitors for the respondents: Clayton Utz

ORDERS

1. A writ of certiorari issue quashing the second respondent’s decision dated 1 July 2016.

2. A writ of mandamus issue requiring the second respondent to review according to law the decision dated 9 May 2016 referred to it by the first respondent under s.473CA of the Migration Act 1958.

3. A writ of prohibition issue prohibiting the first respondent and his delegates, servants and agents from acting upon or giving effect to the second respondent’s decision dated 1 July 2016.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 1641 of 2016

CCU16

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND BORDER PROTECTION

First respondent

And

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is an application for review of a decision made on 1 July 2016 by the Immigration Assessment Authority (“the Authority”).  In that decision, the Authority affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (“the Minister”) not to grant the applicant a protection visa. 

2. This application was listed for final hearing on 16 November 2017. However, the matter did not proceed as a final hearing on that day as the applicant made an oral application that the Minister produce the documents that were the subject of a certificate under s.473GB(5) of the Migration Act 1958 (“the Act”). That application was granted and the final hearing was adjourned to permit the Minister to produce the relevant documents. 

3. At the resumed final hearing on 16 March 2018, the applicant’s counsel informed the court that:

   a)the Minister had produced the required documents to the applicant’s solicitors; and

   b)after his legal advisers had examined those documents, the applicant decided to abandon ground 1 of the application filed on 1 August 2016 and amended on 12 October 2017.   

4. That left only ground 2 of that application for the court to determine.  Ground 2 alleges that the Authority failed to consider certain claims.

The applicant’s claims

1. The applicant is a Hazara national of Afghanistan.  He arrived in Australia on 21 April 2013 as an unauthorised maritime arrival.  He was 15 years old at the time.  He is now 20 years old.  The Authority summarised the applicant’s claims at paragraph 9 of its reasons for decision as follows:

   •He is a citizen of Afghanistan and does not hold citizenship or rights of entry into any other country. He is of Hazara ethnicity and Shia Muslim faith. He was born in Mazar-e- Sharif in 1997.

   • When he was very young, he and his family fled the war in Afghanistan and went to Peshawar in Pakistan where they lived illegally. He has few memories of life in Pakistan.

   • His mother told him that his father returned to Mazar-e-Sharif to sell property as the family was experiencing financial difficulties in Pakistan. He did not return to Pakistan and is missing, presumed to have been killed by the Taliban.

   • The applicant’s family continued to live in Peshawar with the support of his father’s business partner until returning to Afghanistan in approximately 2005.

   • From 2005 until his departure from Afghanistan in 2013, the applicant lived close to the Mazari intersection in Kabul.

   • He worked in Afghanistan but suffered verbal abuse due to his Hazara ethnicity, including being told he did not belong in Afghanistan.

   • His family had no money and relied on his father’s business partner for support. He had to find work in dangerous places.

   • He is fearful of returning to Afghanistan as he has experienced discrimination as a Shia and a Hazara and due to the lack of security and state protection. It is dangerous to live in Kabul as there are fights between the Tajiks and Hazaras.

   • Kabul is unsafe and the living conditions of the Hazaras are unsafe and not improving.

   • The applicant has witnessed a number of security incidents, including a large bomb blast when he was approximately 13 years old. There are random bomb attacks in Hazara districts, including a bomb blast attacking a Shia procession on Ashura day, approximately 100 meters from the applicant’s home and grenade attacks against Hazaras.

   • He obtained a passport and travelled to Australia via India, Malaysia and Indonesia.

   • His mother was too frail to undertake such a trip and therefore travelled to Pakistan.

   • He fears he will be targeted by Pashtun Sunni people in Afghanistan due to his family circumstances, including the disappearance of his father.

   • His family has been unable to establish themselves since his father went missing.  They can barely subsist in Kabul because of living with a single mother with no family homeland safe to return to, no income, no extended family and no paternal or tribal links to rely upon for protection.

   • He and his family are at risk of harm from Sunni Pashtun groups and Daesh (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) insurgents who have recently infiltrated the country.

   • The Afghani authorities are unable and unwilling to provide protection to him due to his ethnicity and religion.

   • People who have been in the ‘West’ are regarded as infidels by the Taliban and other extremist groups. Given the length of time he has spent in Australia the applicant will be imputed to be Western and will be targeted for harm. The authorities will be unable to protect him from harm.

   • He cannot live in Kabul or relocate elsewhere in Afghanistan due to the poor security situation across the country and his lack of tribal connections.

   • The situation for Hazaras across Afghanistan is likely to deteriorate, particularly given the rise of ISIS.

A summary of the Authority’s findings

1. At paragraph 18 of the applicant’s written submissions, he summarised the Authority’s findings as follows:

   a)The Authority accepted that the Applicant was an Afghan national, and a Shia Muslim of Hazara ethnicity (at [15] - [16]).

   b)The Authority accepted that the Applicant’s father had disappeared, because he had possibly been killed by the Taliban, but did not accept that there were any salient features about the Applicant’s father that would give rise to the Applicant facing a real chance of present or future harm (at [17], [40] and [71]).

   c)The Authority rejected the Applicant’s claim that he would face a real chance of present or future harm based on a historical dispute between a family business associate and a market competitor concerning the Applicant’s family’s shop (at [36], [41] and [71]).

   d)As to the Applicant’s claimed fear of harm arising from his being perceived as a failed asylum seeker returning from the West, the Authority found that the Applicant would not face a real chance of harm now or in the future based on this perception (at [50] and [71]). In this regard, the Authority accepted that while the Applicant possessed certain ‘Western’ characteristics (for example, in his appearance, and in the way that he now speaks, and his maintaining a Facebook account), these matters would not render him a target upon return to Kabul (at [37], [44] - [46]). The Authority also noted that the Applicant maintained materially supportive familial and tribal contacts in Afghanistan (at [30]), and, based on his historical experience while in Afghanistan working in his family’s shop, that the Applicant would not be targeted ‘due to a perception that he has money’ (at [50]).

   e)As to the Applicant’s claimed fear of harm arising from his being a Shia Hazara, the Authority accepted that the Applicant had faced, and would continue to face, a ‘low level of discrimination and harassment’ on this basis, but this would not constitute ‘serious harm’ or ‘significant harm’ in the requisite sense (at [52] and [73]). Having regard to the country information it identified and assessed at [51] - [64], the Authority concluded that the Applicant did not have a profile that would cause him to be targeted by the Taliban, Daesh (ISIS) or other extremist groups because of his being a Shia Hazara, and he would therefore not face a real chance of harm on this basis (at [65] and [72]).

   f)The Authority then concluded that the Applicant would not face a real chance of present or future harm based on his ‘cumulative circumstances’ of his claims as a Shia Hazara or for being a failed asylum seeker from the West (at [66] and [74]).

2. Based on those findings, the Authority affirmed the delegate’s decision.

Ground of review

1. The only ground that was pressed was ground 2 in the application filed on 1 August 2016 and amended on 12 October 2017.  That ground is as follows:

   The Authority constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction, or failed to carry out its statutory task, by failing lawfully to consider (including by giving proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the merits of) a claim (or [an] integer of [a] claim) made by the Applicant that he feared harm upon any return to Afghanistan arising from his status as a returnee from a Western country.

   Particulars

   (a)The Applicant made a claim that he would be at risk of harm from the fact of his being a student from a Western country, and therefore perceived as supportive of the Afghan government and targeted on that basis.

   (b)The Authority purported to dismiss the Applicant’s claim to fear harm on the basis of his education but only in the limited context of his improved English and manner of speaking ([37] and [45]).

   (c)The Authority thereby made a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the claim as it had been articulated by the Applicant.

   (d)The Applicant made a claim that he would, [by] reason of having spent time in a Western country, be perceived as being wealthy and would therefore be targeted on any return to Afghanistan on that basis.

   (e)The Authority did consider that the Applicant would potentially be identified as a person returning from the West, including by reason of his appearance, his manner of speaking and the use of his Facebook account ([43]-[47]) but purported to dismiss the Applicant's claim to fear harm on the basis of a perception of wealth having regard only to matters relating to the Applicant's historical experience from the income his family generated while he had been in Afghanistan ([50]).

   (f)The Authority thereby made a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the claim as it had been articulated by the Applicant.

The two claims that were allegedly not considered

1. Ground 2 essentially amounts to an allegation that the Authority failed to consider two claims made by the applicant.  Those claims were articulated at the hearing before this court as follows:

   a)the applicant, as a student, was a person who was liable to be suspected of having an affiliation with the government and, for that reason, would be a target, upon his return to his home country, for anti-government groups (“the student claim”); and

   b)the applicant, because of his time spent in Australia, in particular, his time spent as a young person, would, on return to Afghanistan, be perceived to have wealth, or be a person of means, and, as a result, be vulnerable to harm on that basis (“the wealth claim”).

2. The applicant said that the claims were based on Protection Assessment Guidance Note 5 (“PAGN5”) relating to Hazaras (CB235 to CB269).  PAGN5 is part of the Department of Immigration and Border Proptection’s Procedures Advice Manual.  PAGN5 was referred to by the applicant in his written submissions dated 1 June 2016 which he sent to the Authority.

3. In relation to PAGN5 generally, the Authority said at paragraph 6 of its reasons for decision:

   The submission also states that on 16 February 2016, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the department) published an updated ‘Protection Assessment Guidance Note No.5 — Afghanistan — Hazara ethnicity and/or affiliation with government or international organisations’ (PAGN No.5). The submission states that this report is not new information but relevant information which was available to the delegate but was not mentioned in the primary decision. The delegate’s decision record lists a number of the department’s Procedures Advice Manual 3 papers as being before the delegate, but the department’s PAGN No.5 is not listed. I am not satisfied, on the face of the material, that it was before the delegate when he made the decision, however, given it is the Departments’ own information relating to matters specific to the applicant’s claims, it may have been reasonably assumed that the delegate would have had regard to it, and there was no need for the applicant to provide it to the department. In these circumstances I am satisfied the information was not and could not have been provided to the delegate, and that there are exceptional circumstances to justify considering it.

4. Paragraph 6 of the Authority’s reasons for decision relates to s.473DC and s.473DD of the Act, which were as follows:

   473DC Getting new information

   (1)Subject to this Part, the Immigration Assessment Authority may, in relation to a fast track decision, get any documents or information (new information) that:

   (a)were not before the Minister when the Minister made the decision under section 65; and

   (b)the Authority considers may be relevant.

   (2)The Immigration Assessment Authority does not have a duty to get, request or accept, any new information whether the Authority is requested to do so by a referred applicant or by any other person, or in any other circumstances.

   (3)Without limiting subsection (1), the Immigration Assessment Authority may invite a person, orally or in writing, to give new information:

   (a)in writing; or

   (b)at an interview, whether conducted in person, by telephone or in any other way.

   473DD Considering new information in exceptional circumstances

   For the purposes of making a decision in relation to a fast track reviewable decision, the Immigration Assessment Authority must not consider any new information unless:

   (a)the Authority is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances to justify considering the new information; and

   (b)the referred applicant satisfies the Authority that, in relation to any new information given, or proposed to be given, to the Authority by the referred applicant, the new information:

   (i)was not, and could not have been, provided to the Minister before the Minister made the decision under section 65; or

   (ii)is credible personal information which was not previously known and, had it been known, may have affected the consideration of the referred applicant’s claims.

5. No issue was taken by either party with the Authority’s statements in paragraph 6 of its reasons for decision.  However, the applicant did submit that paragraph 6 of the Authority’s reasons for decision demonstrated that the Authority considered that PAGN5 was relevant.  The Minister did not take any issue with that submission. 

6. The applicant noted that, having determined in paragraph 6 of its reasons for decision that PAGN5 was relevant, the Authority did not refer to it again.  The applicant said that demonstrated error.  The applicant relied upon Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v MZYTS (2013) 230 FCR 431; (2013) 136 ALD 547; [2013] FCAFC 114.

7. The Minister did not suggest that the Authority had referred to PAGN5 elsewhere in its reasons for decision.  However, the Minister submitted that the Authority did not need to because PAGN5 is a digest of country information, and the Authority in fact referred directly to the country information digested in PAGN5, and also to other more recent country information.  The applicant did not dispute the Minister’s submission in that regard.

8. Without specifying the various footnotes in the Authority’s reasons for decision, and the various footnotes in PAGN5, it is clear that the Authority did refer to country information that was footnoted in the PAGN5, and did refer to more recent country information.  Therefore, I do not accept the applicant’s submission that the fact that the Authority did not refer in terms to PAGN5 after discussing it in paragraph 6 of its reasons for decision demonstrates that the Authority fell into error.

9. Nevertheless, the applicant argued that the Authority’s reasons for decision show that it did not consider the student claim or the wealth claim. This argument is considered in detail below.

The claims as put to the Authority

1. In relation to the student claim, the applicant specifically relied in this court on the following passages from PAGN5:

   a)at CB247:

   DFAT also noted in 2014 that:

   ·the Hazara community’s focus on education has resulted in tension with other groups that have not enjoyed similar educational achievements

   · Hazaras are sometimes viewed with suspicion by other groups in Afghanistan due to linguistic and religious linkages with Iran and

   ·Hazaras are widely perceived to be associated with government or the international community.49; and

   b)at CB251:

   UNAMA noted concerns in August 2015 about the rise in conflict-related abductions of civilians in Afghanistan, in which anti-government elements mostly targeted civilian government workers and contractors, family members of government workers, persons perceived to be supporting the Government or security forces, as well as Afghan National Police members with civilian status and former Afghan National Defence and Security Forces (ANSF) members. In early 2014, UNAMA reported 246 attacks against civilians without official affiliation to Government, NGOs or recognised civilian institutions. These civilians included farmers, shopkeepers and students who were perceived as supportive of the Government or national or international security forces.97 EASO also cited a range of country information to conclude that “Afghans collaborating with or supporting the government have been subject to intimidation, attack, killing, abduction and death sentences by Taliban courts. The Taliban also target, threaten, abduct or kill family members of government collaborators.”98

   49   CIS2F827D91264: DFAT Thematic Report Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan, DFAT, 26 March 2014, pp. 6, 7, 11, 14.

   97   CX318307: Afghanistan Annual Report 2013 Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), 08 February 2014, p.25.

   98   CIS24804: EASO Country of Origin report Afghanistan: Insurgent strategies intimidation and targeted violence against Afghans, December 2012, p. 60.

1. In relation to the wealth claim, the applicant relied in this court on the following passage from PAGN5 at CB254:

   In 2015, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism122 cited a London academic based in Kabul as stating that failed asylum seekers are often seen as a source of suspicion and money.123 An October 2012 report from UNHCR indicated that persons associated with the West could be at risk of kidnapping or robbery due to perceived wealth on return to Afghanistan.124

   A number of reports note that young Afghans forced to return to Kabul after having spent their formative years in the West encounter particular risks of being targeted for money or because of their perceived Westernisation.125 In May 2013, the Oxford University Press reported that many returnees and their families experience a sense of shame at the failed asylum attempt, and that returnees from the UK were reportedly singled out as deportees and perceived as “contaminated” by their time spent in the West.126

   122 The Bureau of Investigative Journalism is an independent not-for-profit organisation based at City University London. It aims to expose the undermining of democratic processes and failures to accord with fair, legal and transparent practices through research, analysis, investigation and reporting. See CXBD6A0DE10558: Migration Crisis, Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 16 July 2015. See also CIS28996: What happens post-deportation? The experience of deported Afghans, Oxford University Press, Migration Studies, vol. 1, number 2, 08 May 2013, p. 231.

   124 CIS24488: Catherine Gladwell and Hannah Elwyn, Broken futures: young Afghan asylum seekers in the UK and on return to their country of origin, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Policy Development and Evaluation Service, October 2012, p.36.

   125 CIS36DEOBB2108: No Longer a Child: From the UK to Afghanistan, Catherine Gladwell, Forced Migration Review, September 2013, pp. 62-64. See also: CXBD6A0DE10558: Schooled in Britain, deported to danger:  UK sends 600 former child asylum seekers back to Afghanistan, Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 16 July 2015; CXBD6A0DE10434: The young people sent back to Afghanistan, BBC News, 17 July 2015.

   126 CIS25811: Migration Studies, Volume 1:2, Oxford University Press, 08 May 2013, p.231. See also: CXIB9ECAB6946: Afghan Deportees Return to Shattered Lives, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), 04 November 2014.

2. The applicant sent a submission dated 1 June 2016 to the Authority.  In that submission, the applicant said in relation to the student claim:

   13. PAGN No. 5 is directly relevant to the applicant’s claims and supports a finding of a well-founded fear of persecution in the applicant’s case. UNAMA notes that there was an increase in civilian casualties in Afghanistan in the first six months of 2015, in line with the overall upward trend of civilian casualties in parts of Afghanistan since 2012.8 A number of kidnappings and killings involving Hazaras have occurred throughout 2015 and local media reports have suggested that the Taliban, IS and other foreign militants have targeted the group throughout Afghanistan.9

   8     PAGN No. 5, p10 (footnote 4).

   9     See PAGN No. 5 sections entitled ‘Attacks involving Hazaras’ and ‘Recent Security incidents involving Hazaras’.

   …

   15. Notably, the mere perception of someone as supporting or associated with the government and/or international community may make them a target for anti-government groups. The delegate cited country information which indicated that Hazaras are widely perceived to be affiliated with both the government and international community.12 However, the delegate failed to take into account the risks posed to students. In early 2014, UNAMA reported 246 attacks against civilians without official affiliation to Government, NGOs or recognised civilian institutions. These civilians included farmers, shopkeepers and students who were perceived as supportive of the Government or national or international security forces.13 Furthermore, DFAT has noted that the Hazara community’s focus on education has resulted in tension with other groups that have not enjoyed similar educational achievements.14 (emphasis in original)

   12   Para 104 of the decision record.

   13   PAGN No. 5, p17 (footnote 97). (emphasis added)

   14 PAGN No. 5, p13 (footnote 49).

3. In his submission dated 1 June 2016 to the Authority, the applicant said in relation to the wealth claim:

   16. The applicant claimed persecution based on being a returnee from the West. The delegate accepted that the claimed fear relates to (imputed) political opinion and the particular social group of ‘failed asylum seeker from the West’. However, the delegate found that the fear of persecution was not well-founded.

   17. The delegate failed to take into account a number of relevant reports referred to in PAGN No. 5. These reports note that young Afghans forced to return to Kabul after having spent their formative years in the West encounter particular risks of being targeted for money or because of their perceived Westernisation.15 A UNHCR report has indicated the persons associated with the West could be at risk of kidnapping or robbery due to perceived wealth on return to Afghanistan.16 Failed asylum seekers are seen as a source of suspicion and money or as being ‘contaminated’ by their time spent in the West.17 A number of sources note that returnees face obstacles to reintegration upon return to Afghanistan, including limited access to employment, basic services and the deteriorating security situation.18 (emphasis added)

   15   PAGN No. 5, p20 (footnote 125). (emphasis added)

   16   PAGN No. 5, p 20 (footnote 124). (emphasis added)

   17   PAGN No. 5, p 20 (footnotes 123 and 126).

   18   PAGN No. 5 p 20 (footnote 131).

4. In addition, in the applicant’s submission dated 1 June 2016 to the Authority, he said:

   18. Based on the country information, it is submitted that the applicant has a real chance of being persecuted if he were returned to Afghanistan for the following reasons:

   a. The applicant has become ‘westernised’ through his extended stay in Australia and will be identified as such if returned to Afghanistan through his appearance and behaviour. The delegate has accepted this to be the case.[19] It is submitted that it would be relevant and permissible for the Authority to look at the applicant’s Facebook page ‘[a Facebook alias used by the applicant]’ as it is not new information, having been before the delegate.[20] The Facebook page documents the applicant’s westernisation since February 2014. It shows the applicant with western-style dress and hairstyles, with friends and teachers of Western appearance and in locations which can be identified as Australian. A selection of photographs from the applicant’s Facebook page is included with this submission. It is also declared on the applicant’s Facebook page that he lives in Canberra Australia and studied at Dickson College, Canberra. It is noted that Facebook content is easily copied and shared.

   b. On 2 April 2014, the applicant posted a photo of himself astride an Australian Federal Police motorcycle on Facebook where it has remained. This photo in particular is likely to create a perception that he supports the Australian police, security and/or defence forces. 

   c. On 10 October 2014 and 24 December 2014, the applicant posted a photo of himself wearing a Nike cap. This photo is likely to create a perception that he supports the West. 

   d. The applicant has received a western education while in Australia. He has completed years 11 and 12 and is now undertaking tertiary education in Australia. He is reported by his referees as being bright and conscientious in his studies with ambitions to pursue qualifications in business. His educational achievements and ambitions give rise to a real chance of him being targeted for attack and discrimination if returned to Afghanistan. 

   [19]   Paras 82 and 115 of the decision record.

   [20]   Para 41 of the decision record.

The Authority’s reasons for decision

1. In relation to the matters presently under consideration, the Authority said:

   37.The applicant came to Australia in April 2013. He undertook year 11 and 12 at school here. He studied English in Afghanistan but I accept that his English would have improved in the time that he has been here. The photographs provided in the IAA submission show that the applicant dresses in clothing similar to other young men in Australia of a similar age and I therefore accept that the applicant’s appearance is that of a person who has spent time in the West.

   …

   42.The applicant claims to fear harm if he returns to Afghanistan as a failed asylum seeker who has spent time in Australia and who is now “Westernised”, because of information on his Facebook page and as a consequence of DIBP’s unintentional publishing of a routine report on the department’s website which resulted in his personal information being available for access for a short period of time in 2014. In addition, it is stated in the IAA submission dated 29 June 2016 that the applicant has reported a loss of some Dari and Hazaragi words from his vocabulary since coming to Australia and that this and a lack of knowledge about changes in local conditions would reveal him to be a returnee from the West.

   43. I accept that due to the circumstances of his return to Afghanistan, including not having a passport and being accompanied by Australian officials, and due to the unintentional publication of some of his data, the applicant may be identified as a person who sought asylum in Australia. I also accept that given his appearance, his improved English and some loss of Dari and Hazaragi words and lack of recent local knowledge, he may be identified as a person returning from the West.

44.DFAT assesses that Hazara Shia returnees who are not directly associated with the government or the International community currently do not face a higher level of risk upon return than do returnees to Afghanistan from other ethnic groups (other than Hazaras initially returned to Kabul who may face a heightened risk of violence or kidnapping on the roads between Kabul and the Hazarajat).4 In particular, DFAT’s assessment is that it is relatively safe for Hazara Shia to return to Hazara-majority areas in Kabul.5 The applicant does not have the type of profile identified by DFAT that may place, him at risk of harm in Kabul. There is no indication from DFAT that returnees who wear Western clothing are targeted in Kabul.

45. At the age assessment interview, it was noted that his English was good and the applicant said he attended English lessons at private English language centres in Kabul from the age of 10 until the age of 15. He described a sporadic pattern of attendance but said the lessons he attended were about two hours daily. He also said he had many opportunities to practise English while living in Pakistan, where he said English was widely used. At the SHEV interview, he was unable to say how long he had attended English classes, but when asked if it was a few weeks, a few months or a few years, he said it was a few months. He did not give any evidence of having been targeted for his ability to speak English before he came to Australia. I accept that his English would have improved while he has been a student in Australia but I do not accept that his westernised appearance, his ability to speak good English, or the temporary loss of some Dari and Hazaragi words or a lack of recent local knowledge would make him a target upon his return.

46. The applicant had a Facebook account when he was living in Afghanistan but the first and second names on that account are different to the names he has used for Facebook since coming to Australia. I note that it is a relatively common practice for a person to use a different name, or a variation of their name on Facebook and I draw no adverse inference on this basis. In a statement to the Department dated 7 December 2015, the applicant stated that he also used to have an account in [his own name] but he later changed it to [a Facebook alias]. In the IAA submission, the applicant’s agent stated that the latter account “documents the applicant's westernisation since February 2014.” The applicant has posted photographs of himself in various situations in Australia, including astride a police motorcycle, which, it is submitted, is likely to create a perception that he supports the Australian police, security and/or defence forces. The representative also stated that the applicant has named the city in Australia in which he lives and which school he attended. The representative submitted that Facebook content is easily copied and shared. If the applicant was concerned about the perception his Facebook information could create, or the disclosure of his whereabouts or the fact that his information could be copied and shared, it was open to him not to post that information, or to make it private to limit its audience. In any event, the name used on his current Facebook account bears no resemblance to the names on the account he used when he lived in Afghanistan, nor does it match the names on his taskera. While I accept that the current Facebook account is evidence of his time spent in Australia and his westernisation, I do not accept that the applicant would be identified as the holder of the current account and therefore his use of that account in Australia does not pose a risk to him.

…

49. A report which refers to the return of young people who went to the UK as unaccompanied children and were forcibly returned to Afghanistan as young adults discusses problems faced by these young people who have difficulties re-connecting with their family networks, dealing with insecurity and poverty in Afghanistan after having spent years living in relative peace and affluence, a lack of education and employment opportunities in Afghanistan and being viewed as “Westernised outsiders”.12 The report states that some of the returnees were mugged due to a perception that returning from Europe must mean returning with money and one was kidnapped and held to ransom until his family paid for his release.13

50. While I acknowledge the difficulties that may be faced by young returnees with no education or employment opportunities and with no family or financial support, the applicant has not lost contact with his family and has resources on which he can rely. The applicant has one sister living in Kabul and his mother travels between Kabul and her other daughter in Pakistan. I have found that the applicant’s family has a share in the fabric business in Kabul and the applicant’s mother receives financial support and accommodation from Khalil. The applicant lived with his mother and sister in Khalil’s house in Kabul from 2005 until 2012. He has an existing tribal support network, I am of the view that Khalil would continue to support him in the future, he is a young, single man who has worked in Kabul before and given his family’s share in the fabric business I am satisfied that he would have access to funds as before. In addition, I do not consider that there is a real chance of the applicant being targeted due to a perception that he has money. The applicant lived in Kabul for 7 years and worked first in the fabric shop and then in a paint shop. There is no indication that he was harmed in any way for having an income and owning a share in the fabric shop while he lived in Afghanistan and I am of the view that there is only a remote risk that he would be targeted for those reasons in the future. I am not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution now or in the reasonably foreseeable future as a Westernised failed asylum seeker in Kabul, the place to which he will be returned by Australian authorities.

4    DFAT, “DFAT Thematic Report Hazaras in Afghanistan 2015-16 update”, 8 February 2016, CIS38A8012186, p.15.

5     DFAT, “DFAT Thematic Report Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan”, 26 March 2014, CIS2F827D91264.

12   Catherine Gladwell, “No longer a child: from the UK to Afghanistan”, Forced Migration Review, 1 September 2013, CI536DE0BB2108.

13   Ibid.

The applicant’s submissions in relation to the student claim

1. At paragraph 35 of his written submissions to this court, the applicant said in relation to the student claim:

   As to the first integer, the Authority only had regard to the risk arising to the Applicant from his status as an educated student as it related to his improved English and his manner of speaking as a consequence (see, [37], [45]). Further, while the Authority did not consider that the Applicant had any particular profile which the country information identified might give rise to a risk of harm (at [44]), it is not apparent in the terms of the Authority’s decision as to how it relevantly weighed the material which suggested that a risk of harm arose to those with an education (perceived as they might be as supportive of the Government, or arising from the tensions between those with and without education). The Applicant submits that an inference arises that the Authority did not properly consider this claim, because it did not properly comprehend it by reference to the material put forward by the Applicant to sustain it.11

   11Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v MZYTS (2013) 230 FCR 431,443 at [34] (per Kenny, Griffiths & Mortimer JJ).

2. In oral submissions, the applicant said that the Authority acknowledged that the applicant had undertaken years 11 and 12 in Australia but did not mention that he was undertaking tertiary education here.  However, the applicant did not explain the significance of that circumstance.  Consequently, I take that issue no further.

3. The applicant accepted in oral submissions that the Authority made findings that engaged with the applicant’s improved English as a result of living here for some years.  However, the applicant argued that the Authority simply did not deal with the claim that the applicant, as a student, was a person who was liable to be suspected of having an affiliation with the government and, for that reason, would be a target, upon his return to Afghanistan, for anti-government groups.

The Minister’s submissions in relation to the student claim

1. In his written submissions, the Minister said:

   33. The applicant says this claim or integer arose from submissions he made to the Authority on 1 June 2016 (including underlying country information) (see CB 211 [15]. However, when that material is considered it is clear the applicant did not claim he would be at risk of harm because he was a student from a Western country - the relevant fear related to his ethnicity as a Hazara.

   34.The submissions (at CB 211 [15]) suggest the delegate failed to consider the risk of harm to students because they were perceived as supportive of the Government or national or international security forces. That submission was made by reference to country information. The first  reference to  country  information (CB 251) related to attacks against civilians in Afghanistan, including students. However, it is clear from the context that the reference to “students” is a reference to students in Afghanistan. There is nothing to suggest, and the applicant did not claim, it would be known by anyone that he had been a student in Australia. The second reference to country information related to “the Hazara community’s focus on education” which has “resulted in tension with other groups” (CB 247). That information did support a claim said to arise because of the applicant having been a student in Australia.

   35.It follows, the Minister respectfully submits, the applicant did not claim he would be harmed because he was a student from a Western country and the Authority did not err for failing to advert to such a claim (or integer).

1. In his oral submissions, the Minister corrected the fifth sentence of paragraph 34 of his submissions.1 The Minister acknowledged that the applicant had in fact claimed that it would be known that the applicant had been a student in Australia, because his Facebook page would reveal that.  However, the Minister submitted that the Authority had dismissed the Facebook claim, at paragraph 46 of its reasons for decision, and noted that there was no challenge to those findings.

   1     The Minister’s written submissions were prepared by a barrister other than the one who appeared at the hearing before this court.

2. The Minister noted that the student claim was based on paragraph 15 of the applicant’s submission to the Authority, where it was said that:

   In early 2014, UNAMA reported 246 attacks against civilians without official affiliation to Government, NGOs or recognised civilian institutions. These civilians included farmers, shopkeepers and students who were perceived as supportive of the Government or national or international security forces.13 (emphasis in original)

   13 PAGN No. 5, p17 (footnote 97).

3. The Minister argued that, based on normal grammatical construction, the second sentence did not amount to a claim that all students were perceived as supportive of the government and so on.  Rather, the two sentences as a whole meant that some civilians, some of whom were students, who were perceived as supportive of the government, were attacked.  In other words, it was the Minister’s submission that not all students were at risk simply because they were students.  The Minister emphasised that there was no reason that it would be known in Afghanistan that the applicant was a student.

4. In addition, the Minister argued that the Authority dealt with the student claim at a greater level of generality, relying on Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 236 FCR 593; (2003) 75 ALD 630; [2003] FCAFC 184. The Minister did not say expressly which findings were the findings of greater generality. However, it may be that the Minister meant the following paragraphs of the Authority’s reasons for decision:

   44.DFAT assesses that Hazara Shia returnees who are not directly associated with the government or the international community currently do not face a higher level of risk upon return than do returnees to Afghanistan from other ethnic groups (other than Hazaras initially returned to Kabul who may face a heightened risk of violence or kidnapping on the roads between Kabul and the Hazarajat).4 In particular, DFAT’s assessment is that it is relatively safe for Hazara Shia to return to Hazara-majority areas in Kabul.5 The applicant does not have the type of profile identified by DFAT that may place him at risk of harm in Kabul. There is no indication from DFAT that returnees who wear Western clothing are targeted in Kabul.

   45.…  He did not give any evidence of having been targeted for his ability to speak English before he came to Australia. I accept that his English would have improved while he has been a student in Australia but I do not accept that his westernised appearance, his ability to speak good English, or the temporary loss of some Dari and Hazaragi words or a lack of recent local knowledge would make him a target upon his return.

   4    DFAT, “DFAT Thematic Report Hazaras in Afghanistan 2015-16 update”, 8 February 2016, CIS38A8012186, p.15.

   5     DFAT, “DFAT Thematic Report Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan”, 26 March 2014, CIS2F827D91264.

The applicant’s submissions in reply on the student claim

1. In reply, the applicant submitted that the Authority engaged with specific aspects of the applicant’s westernisation, including his English skills, and westernised appearance, but did not deal with his profile as a student.

Consideration in relation to the student claim

1. I accept the Minister’s submission that the passage in the applicant’s submission to the Authority that:

   In early 2014, UNAMA reported 246 attacks against civilians without official affiliation to Government, NGOs or recognised civilian institutions. These civilians included farmers, shopkeepers and students who were perceived as supportive of the Government or national or international security forces. (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted)

   does not convey a claim that all students in Afghanistan are perceived as supporters of the government and so on.  It does not convey a claim that students, as such, are at risk in Afghanistan.  Rather, it indicates that those people who are perceived as being supportive of the government and so on, whether they be shopkeepers, farmers or students, are at risk of harm.

2. The claims that (PAGN5, CB247):

   ·the Hazara community’s focus on education has resulted in tension with other groups that have not enjoyed similar educational achievements

   · Hazaras are sometimes viewed with suspicion by other groups in Afghanistan due to linguistic and religious linkages with Iran and

   ·Hazaras are widely perceived to be associated with government or the international community.49

   are claims about Hazaras generally, not Hazara students in particular. 

   49   CIS2F827D91264: DFAT Thematic Report Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan, DFAT, 26 March 2014, pp. 6, 7, 11, 14.

3. The Authority dealt with the claims about the applicant as a Hazara at paragraph 44 of its reasons for decision, where it said:

   DFAT assesses that Hazara Shia returnees who are not directly associated with the government or the international community currently do not face a higher level of risk upon return than do returnees to Afghanistan from other ethnic groups (other than Hazaras initially returned to Kabul who may face a heightened risk of violence or kidnapping on the roads between Kabul and the Hazarajat).4 In particular, DFAT’s assessment is that it is relatively safe for Hazara Shia to return to Hazara-majority areas in Kabul.5 The applicant does not have the type of profile identified by DFAT that may place, him at risk of harm in Kabul. There is no indication from DFAT that returnees who wear Western clothing are targeted in Kabul.

   4    DFAT, “DFAT Thematic Report Hazaras in Afghanistan 2015-16 update”, 8 February 2016, CIS38A8012186, p.15.

   5     DFAT, “DFAT Thematic Report Hazaras in Afghanistan and Pakistan”, 26 March 2014, CIS2F827D91264.

4. I am not persuaded that the applicant did actually make a claim that, as a student, he was a person who was liable to be suspected of having an affiliation with the government and, for that reason, would be a target, upon his return to Afghanistan, for anti-government groups.  Nor did that claim arise on the materials.  Therefore, there was no error in the Authority not dealing with that claim.  I consider that the Authority did deal with related claims made by the applicant, either expressly or by findings of greater generality, as submitted by the Minister.

The applicant’s submissions in relation to the wealth claim

1. In his written submissions to this court, the applicant said in relation to the wealth claim:

   36.As to the second integer, the prospect of the Applicant being harmed as a result of being perceived as wealthy arose directly from the assumptions and inferences that might be drawn from his Westernised appearance. The Authority did consider that the Applicant would potentially be identified as a person returning from the West, including by reason of his appearance, his manner of speaking and the use of his Facebook account (at [43] to [47]). However, the Authority did not directly consider whether the Applicant would face a real chance of harm based on his being perceived as a person with wealth, in part because of his Westernised appearance, but also as a result of the length of time he spent in Australia. The Authority did briefly note country information pertaining to the risks of returnees being mugged or kidnapped for ransom due to a perception that returning from Europe must mean returning with money (at [49]). The Authority then went on to find (at [50]), expressly, that the Applicant would not be perceived as having money because of matters pertaining only to historical experience from the income his family generated while he had been in Afghanistan  (that is, from his family business). The Authority’s finding at [50] about the risk of harm arising from the perception of wealth was expressly referable to his historical experience in Afghanistan  (‘...there is only a remote risk that he would be targeted for those reasons in the future’).

   37.The Authority made no finding, expressly or by implication, that the Applicant would not now be perceived as having money based on his Westernised appearance and face a risk of harm on that basis, which is how the integer of the claim was expressly articulated (or arose with tolerable clarity on the materials). Further, the Authority’s misconception or misunderstanding as to how the claim was actually framed is apparent from its limited summary of the claims (at [9] and [42]) which do not advert to the assumption of wealth arising from his Westernised appearance. To the extent that the limited country information reference at [49] might give rise to an implication that the Authority understood the claim, there is nothing to suggest that the Authority engaged with the claim in a real and active way, especially having already determined that the Applicant would be perceived as Westernised.

2. In his oral submissions, the applicant acknowledged that the Authority was aware of at least part of the wealth claim.  However, the applicant noted that the Authority said at paragraph 50 of its reasons for decision:

   … I do not consider that there is a real chance of the applicant being targeted due to a perception that he has money. The applicant lived in Kabul for 7 years and worked first in the fabric shop and then in a paint shop. There is no indication that he was harmed in any way for having an income and owning a share in the fabric shop while he lived in Afghanistan and I am of the view that there is only a remote risk that he would be targeted for those reasons in the future. I am not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution now or in the reasonably foreseeable future as a Westernised failed asylum seeker in Kabul, the place to which he will be returned by Australian authorities.

3. The applicant argued that this passage demonstrated that the Authority based its reasoning on the wealth claim wholly on the fact that the applicant had not been harmed for reasons of his wealth in the past.  The applicant argued that the Authority did not deal with the claim as put, which was said to be that, because he had spent his formative years in Australia, he was at greater risk now because of his wealth than he had been in the past.

The Minister’s submissions in relation to the wealth claim

1. In relation to the wealth claim, the Minister said in his written submissions that:

   37.At [49] the Authority referred to country information that, in part, dealt with harm to returnees to Afghanistan from the West who might be perceived as wealthy. Then, at [50], the Authority dealt with difficulties the applicant might face on his return to Afghanistan. Towards the end of the paragraph, the Authority noted “In addition, I do not consider that there is a real chance of the applicant being targeted due to a perception that he has money.” It is apparent from what follows that the Authority’s conclusion was supported by the Authority’s view that the applicant had not been targeted for harm when he was last in Kabul and had money (because he worked in a fabric shop that he had a share in and because he worked in a paint shop). It can be inferred that the Authority concluded that the applicant would have been perceived as having money at that time. He was not harmed in the past when he was perceived as having money so if he was again perceived as having money (for a different reason), the risk of harm was remote.

   38.It follows from what is set out above that the Authority dealt with the applicant’s claim that he would be targeted from harm because of a perception that he was wealthy.

2. In oral submissions, the Minister said that the Authority dealt with the wealth claim at paragraphs 49 and 50 of its reasons for decision, which are as follows:

   49.A report which refers to the return of young people who went to the UK as unaccompanied children and were forcibly returned to Afghanistan as young adults discusses problems faced by these young people who have difficulties re-connecting with their family networks, dealing with insecurity and poverty in Afghanistan after having spent years living in relative peace and affluence, a lack of education and employment opportunities in Afghanistan and being viewed as “Westernised outsiders”.12 The report states that some of the returnees were mugged due to a perception that returning from Europe must mean returning with money and one was kidnapped and held to ransom until his family paid for his release.13

   50.While I acknowledge the difficulties that may be faced by young returnees with no education or employment opportunities and with no family or financial support, the applicant has not lost contact with his family and has resources on which he can rely. The applicant has one sister living in Kabul and his mother travels between Kabul and her other daughter in Pakistan. I have found that the applicant’s family has a share in the fabric business in Kabul and the applicant’s mother receives financial support and accommodation from Khalil. The applicant lived with his mother and sister in Khalil’s house in Kabul from 2005 until 2012. He has an existing tribal support network, I am of the view that Khalil would continue to support him in the future, he is a young, single man who has worked in Kabul before and given his family’s share in the fabric business I am satisfied that he would have access to funds as before. In addition, I do not consider that there is a real chance of the applicant being targeted due to a perception that he has money. The applicant lived in Kabul for 7 years and worked first in the fabric shop and then in a paint shop. There is no indication that he was harmed in any way for having an income and owning a share in the fabric shop while he lived in Afghanistan and I am of the view that there is only a remote risk that he would be targeted for those reasons in the future. I am not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution now or in the reasonably foreseeable future as a Westernised failed asylum seeker in Kabul, the place to which he will be returned by Australian authorities.

   12   Catherine Gladwell, “No longer a child: from the UK to Afghanistan”, Forced Migration Review, 1 September 2013, CIS36DEOBB2108.

   13   Catherine Gladwell, “No longer a child: from the UK to Afghanistan”, Forced Migration Review, 1 September 2013, CIS36DEOBB2108.

3. The Minister submitted that the Authority dealt with the wealth claim, albeit that the future perception of the applicant’s wealth might be based on him having been in a Western country rather than because he had a share of a fabric shop.  The Minister submitted, in effect, that the source of the applicant’s wealth, or the reasons that he might be perceived as wealthy, had no bearing on whether the Authority considered the claim as put.

The applicant’s reply submissions on the wealth claim

1. In reply, the applicant said that the perception of the applicant, and his wealth, might be very different, depending on whether he was perceived as being from the West or merely from a fabric shop.

Consideration of the wealth claim

1. The applicant said that he put a claim to the Authority to the effect that, because of his time spent in Australia, in particular, his time spent as a young person, he would, on return to Afghanistan, be perceived to have wealth, or be a person of means, and, as a result, be vulnerable to harm on that basis.

2. More particularly, the applicant said the claim was made by reference to PAGN5, which said, at CB254:

   In 2015, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism122 cited a London academic based in Kabul as stating that failed asylum seekers are often seen as a source of suspicion and money.123 An October 2012 report from UNHCR indicated that persons associated with the West could be at risk of kidnapping or robbery due to perceived wealth on return to Afghanistan.124

   A number of reports note that young Afghans forced to return to Kabul after having spent their formative years in the West encounter particular risks of being targeted for money or because of their perceived Westernisation.125

   122 The Bureau of Investigative Journalism is an independent not-for-profit organisation based at City University London. It aims to expose the undermining of democratic processes and failures to accord with fair, legal and transparent practices through research, analysis, investigation and reporting. See CXBD6A0DE10558: Migration Crisis, Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 16 July 2015. See also CIS28996: What happens post-deportation? The experience of deported Afghans, Oxford University Press, Migration Studies, vol. 1, number 2, 08 May 2013, p. 231.

   124 CIS24488: Catherine Gladwell and Hannah Elwyn, Broken futures: young Afghan asylum seekers in the UK and on return to their country of origin, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Policy Development and Evaluation Service, October 2012, p.36.

   125 CIS36DEOBB2108: No Longer a Child: From the UK to Afghanistan, Catherine Gladwell, Forced Migration Review, September 2013, pp. 62-64. See also: CXBD6A0DE10558: Schooled in Britain, deported to danger:  UK sends 600 former child asylum seekers back to Afghanistan, Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 16 July 2015; CXBD6A0DE10434: The young people sent back to Afghanistan, BBC News, 17 July 2015.

3. In addition, the applicant’s submission to the Authority said at [17]:

   The delegate failed to take into account a number of relevant reports referred to in PAGN No. 5. These reports note that young Afghans forced to return to Kabul after having spent their formative years in the West encounter particular risks of being targeted for money or because of their perceived Westernisation.15 A UNHCR report has indicated the persons associated with the West could be at risk of kidnapping or robbery due to perceived wealth on return to Afghanistan.16

   15   PAGN No. 5, p20 (footnote 125).

   16   PAGN No. 5, p 20 (footnote 124).

4. I accept these statements amounted to a claim that the applicant faced harm not only because of his perceived wealth, but also because he had spent his formative years in a Western country.  

5. The Authority did not deal with that claim expressly. In paragraph 49 of its reasons for decision, the Authority noted that:

   A report which refers to the return of young people who went to the UK as unaccompanied children and were forcibly returned to Afghanistan as young adults … states that some of the returnees were mugged due to a perception that returning from Europe must mean returning with money and one was kidnapped and held to ransom until his family paid for his release.13

   13   Catherine Gladwell, “No longer a child: from the UK to Afghanistan”, Forced Migration Review, 1 September 2013, CIS36DEOBB2108.

6. The Authority appears to have accepted that report, because it summarised it without saying that it rejected it.

7. The Authority dealt in paragraph 50 of its reasons for decision with the economic difficulties facing young returnees.   However, the Authority did not deal with the risk facing young returnees of being robbed or kidnapped.  The Authority simply said, at the end of paragraph 50 of its reasons for decision, without exposing its reasoning process:

   I am not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution now or in the reasonably foreseeable future as a Westernised failed asylum seeker in Kabul …

1. Having apparently accepted country information that unaccompanied children such as the applicant who went to the West but who were forcibly returned to Afghanistan as young adults faced a risk of being robbed and kidnapped, the Authority could not simply say, without any explanation, that the applicant did not face a real risk of persecution as a Westernised failed asylum seeker. 

2. The balance of paragraph 50 of the Authority’s reasons for decision does not provide the necessary explanation.  The first part of paragraph 50 deals with economic difficulties.  No issue was taken with that. The second part of paragraph 50 basically said that the applicant does not face a risk of harm because of his wealth in the future because he had experienced no harm for that reason in the past.  That can be a sound process of reasoning.  However, it is not a sound process of reasoning where there has been a change of circumstances in the intervening period or new information has become available. 

3. In the present case, there had been a change of circumstances.  The perception of the applicant’s wealth upon the applicant’s return to Afghanistan would be based not only on his connection to a fabric shop but also on his connection to the West.  The Minister submitted that the perception of the source of the applicant’s wealth was immaterial.  However, having a connection to the West would seem to be an obvious additional motivation for robbers and kidnappers.  But whether it is or not, it was a claim that was raised, so the Authority had to deal with it.

4. Moreover, the Authority apparently accepted country information dated 1 September 2013, which is after the applicant left Afghanistan, that people who had left Afghanistan as unaccompanied minors and who were forcibly returned faced a risk of robbery and kidnapping.  The Authority was obliged to apply that information to the applicant, and decide whether it meant he faced a real risk of robbery and kidnapping.  In doing so, the Authority was obliged to undertake an active intellectual engagement with the information, and expose its process of reasoning.  The Authority could not simply state a conclusion that the applicant did not face a real chance of persecution as a Westernised failed asylum seeker.

5. I do not accept the Minister’s submission that the Authority dealt with the issue with findings of greater generality.  The Authority dealt with part of the wealth claim, but not the aspect of the wealth claim that concerned the applicant having spent his formative years in a Western country.   

6. The Authority fell into jurisdictional error in relation to the wealth claim.  Ground 2 is made out.

Conclusion

1. As one of the applicant’s grounds has been made out, constitutional writs will be issued.  The Minister will be ordered to pay the applicant’s costs. I will hear the parties on the question of quantum.

I certify that the preceding fifty-seven (57) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Riley

Date: 2 May 2018