Chandra v Minister for Immigration
[2007] FMCA 1568
•17 September 2007
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| CHANDRA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2007] FMCA 1568 |
| MIGRATION – Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa – cancellation. |
| Saleem v Migration Review Tribunal & Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 234 referred to. Tarasovski & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Local Government & Ethnic Affairs (1993) 45 FCR 570 referred to. |
| Applicant: | NAVIN CHANDRA |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File number: | SYG 1181 of 2006 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 15 January 2007 |
| Date of last submission: | 15 January 2007 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 17 September 2007 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Michael Jones Solicitor |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Cleary |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The title of the First Respondent is changed to Minister for Immigration & Citizenship.
That there be an order in the nature of certiorari quashing the decision of the Second Respondent Migration Review Tribunal made on 29 March 2006.
There be an order in the nature of mandamus requiring the Second Respondent to redetermine the Applicant's application according to law.
That there be a declaration that the decision of the Second Respondent is void and of no effect.
That a writ of prohibition is to issue directed to the First Respondent Minister prohibiting the Minister or the Minister's agents or delegates from acting upon or giving effect to or enforcing the Tribunal's decision.
That the First Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s costs fixed in the sum of $6,000.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1181 of 2006
| NAVIN CHANDRA |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
This is an application for review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal which was handed down on 29th March 2006. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the Minister to cancel the Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa held by the Applicant.
The Applicant by means of an application filed on 24th April 2006 seeks judicial review of that decision. At the hearing on 15th January 2007 I granted leave to file in Court a further amended application. In that further amended application the Applicant seeks the following orders:
a)A writ of certiorari removing to this Court to be quashed the purported decision of the Second Respondent - Migration Review Tribunal.
b)A declaration that the Tribunal's decision is void and of no effect.
c)A writ of prohibition directed to the First Respondent preventing the First Respondent Minister and now his agents or delegates from acting upon or giving effect to or enforcing the Tribunal's decision.
d)An order that the Respondents pay the Applicant's costs.
Background
The background to this matter is quite complicated. The Applicant arrived in Australia on a Subclass 676 (Visitor) (Short stay) visa on 18th July 1999. When that visa ceased on 11th October in that year the Applicant was granted a Subclass 686 (Visitor) (Long stay) visa. On 10th April 2000 the Applicant provided for a Subclass 835 (Remaining Relative) visa and was granted a Bridging A visa on the basis of that application. As part of his application the Applicant signed a declaration which stated, in part:
I declare that the information I have supplied in this application is complete, correct and up-to-date in every detail.
I understand that if I give false or misleading information, my application may be refused, or any visa granted may be cancelled…
I will inform the Department of Immigration & Multicultural Affairs of any changes to my personal circumstances (including change of address) while my application is being considered.
In his application the Applicant listed his family members outside of Australia. He listed the following people: Kala Wati (deceased April 1985), female, his mother; and father, Babu Ram, male, residing in Canada. As to brothers and sisters, the Applicant provided details of one, Mehandar Pratap, a half-brother, male, residing in Australia.
On 29th January 2001 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the applicant a Subclass 835 visa. The Applicant then applied to the Migration Review Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision on 22nd February 2002. On 30th May 2002 the Tribunal received a statutory declaration from the Applicant which said, amongst other things, that after his mother's funeral:
When I went to live with Mehandar Pratap I have had no contact with my father.
On 21st June 2002 the Tribunal remitted the application to the Department with the direction that the Applicant met certain criteria for the grant of a visa.
On 4th March 2003 a delegate of the Minister granted the Applicant a Subclass 835 visa. On 22nd February 2004 the Applicant's fiancée lodged a visa application with the Department on the basis that she was the Applicant's fiancée. In that application it was set out that this Applicant had relatives in Fiji, being a sister named Roshini Lata and his father.
A Departmental officer interviewed the Applicant's fiancée on 24th May 2004 and noted that the fiancée stated, amongst other things:
·The Applicant wished to get married and so he phoned the cousin in Fiji and a priest arranged a meeting with the fiancée.
·They first met on 11th February 2004 when the Applicant's father and sister were present at that meeting.
·The Applicant's father and sister attended the parties' engagement and wedding at the fiancée's home on 18th February 2004.
·The Applicant had stayed with his father and sister in Nadi and returned there after the wedding.
·The traditional wedding would not take place until January 2005.
An officer of the Department viewed a video of the ceremony on 25th May 2004 and while it was not apparent that the sister appeared, the sister's son was sighted in many of the group shots.
The Department sent a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation to the Applicant on 12th July 2004 indicating that it had come to the Department's attention that he may not have complied with s.101 of the Act. The Applicant's attention was drawn to information he had provided in his initial application. He stated that the Department then had information which showed:
You also have a sister by the name of Roshini Lata (contrary to your statement that you have no sister).
You have two brothers (contrary to your declaration that you only have one brother, a half-brother who is resident in Australia).
Your father may have always been a resident of Fiji (not Canada, as you have claimed).[1]
[1] See Court Book at page 230
The Department then set out evidence which would be taken into account, including the Applicant's then wife's visa application and the videotape of the ceremony and engagement photos and the Applicant's birth certificate which stated that at the time of his birth his parents had two previous male living issues and one female living issue and no dead issues.
The Applicant responded to this Notice on 26th July 2004 and indicated, amongst other things, that to the best of his knowledge he provided all the information of which he was aware and was available to him at the time he lodged his application. He went to Fiji in order to get engaged in February 2004. During this trip by chance he met his uncle, Babu Lal, whom he had never met before. The Applicant stated that he did not remembering having seen the uncle or the sister, Roshini Lata. The person Roshini Lata is not the child of the Applicant's parents, but his late mother Kala Wati only registered Roshini Lata under the mother's name in order to give her a mother figure as her real mother had abandoned her at birth.
The Department made further investigations in Fiji in relation to the family composition of the Applicant and received the following information:
·Kala Wati died on 4 April 1985. She was married to Babu Lal.
·Kala Wati had three children: 2 males and 1 female.
·When searching for the name of the children of Kala Wati and Babu Lal only 2 children were found, Roshini Lata and Navin Chandra, the Applicant.
·The Registry Office, according to the Department, also believed that Babu Ram was also known as Babu Lal.
On 26th August 2004 further information based upon a search of the Fiji Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages office found this:
·Kala Wati and Babu Lal were never legally married.
·Kala Wati's death certificate stated that Babu Lal was the person to whom she was married.
·Kala Wati was legally married to Chandra Sen on 4 July 1953 and no divorce records were found.
·Mehandar Pratap is registered to Kala Wati and Chandra Sen.
·Roshini Lata is registered to Babu Lal and Kala Wati.
·Navin Chandra is registered to Babu Ram and Kala Wati.
The Department wrote to the Applicant on 3rd September 2004 asking him to respond to certain questions:
·What did he mean by "sister figure" in relation to Roshini Lata, and why did he need to introduce her as a sister figure if he did not have a sister?
·The Department asked the Applicant to explain the discrepancy between the Applicant's fiancée's statement that Babu Lal was resident in Nadi and the Applicant's statement that Babu Lal was resident in Ba.
·Whether the Applicant stayed with Babu Lal during his visit to Fiji in February 2004, and if so, whether it was in Nadi or Ba. Also whether the Applicant stayed with Roshini Lata just before his wedding in February 2004, and if so, whether it was in Nadi or elsewhere.
·The Applicant was asked to bear in mind that he had not stated that he had stayed with Babu Lal at this time while his fiancée had stated that he had stayed with Babu Lal and Roshini Lata.
The Applicant applied on 13th September 2004 saying that his fiancée believed that his father and sister attended the engagement on 18th February 2004 as well as his brother from Australia. He invited Babu Lal as his ‘father figure’ and Roshini Lata as a ‘sister figure’. He did this because an Indian wedding takes three days and in Indian culture it is customary that such people play a part in the ceremony. Babu Lal and Roshini Lata resided together in Nadi and when he met Babu Lal in Ba he was actually a resident of Nadi. While his fiancée believed that he had stayed with Babu Lal and Roshini Lata prior to the wedding in fact he did not stay with either of them, he actually stayed with his cousin. The priest was not aware of his family composition, nor were the guests at the wedding, and they believed that Babu Lal was the Applicant's father even though he was only acting as a ‘father figure’.
The Applicant attended an interview at the Department's office on 17th September 2004 stating that:
·He lived with his father, Babu Ram, and his mother Kala Wati, until 1985 when his mother passed away. His father left him 13 days after that and he has not seen his father since then. Since 1985 he has lived with his brother, Mehandar Pratap.
·His cousin told him that his father was living in Canada.
·He first met his uncle Babu Lal in February 2004 at the market place in Ba, Fiji, about a week before the wedding. His uncle recognised him and took him to his home in Nadi.
·At the wedding there were about 50 to 60 people and that the Applicant did not know the priest and others and believes that his fiancée must have told them that Babu Lal was his father and Roshini Lata was his sister because his fiancée was unaware of his true relationship with them.
·Neither Babu Lal nor Roshini Lata were introduced to his fiancée as they had all arrived together for the wedding.
·The Applicant admitted that the priest and another person had referred to Babu Lal as his father and stated that this must have been because his fiancée introduced them to his uncle as such.
On 23rd October 2004 the Applicant provided three statutory declarations, including one from Babu Lal stating that he was not the Applicant's father, another one from the Applicant's fiancée's brother dated 23rd September 2004 stating that he was not sure if Babu Lal was the Applicant's father or not, and from the Applicant's fiancée dated 23rd September 2004 which indicated that the information she provided in her application was incorrect as she was not aware of her husband's family background prior to the engagement.
On 5th November 2004 the delegate of the Minister made a decision to cancel the Applicant's visa on the basis that he had provided incorrect information on his visa application form in breach of s.101.
On 17th November 2004 the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision and provided a submission in support of the application. The Applicant provided further submission on 3rd December 2004, including a declaration from Babu Lal and a copy of his driver's licence from 1993 in the name of ‘B Lal’. The Applicant and his half-brother Mehandar Pratap attended a hearing of the Tribunal on 21st July 2005. Both the Applicant and Mehandar Pratap gave evidence.
The Tribunal’s Findings
The Tribunal decision record can be found at pages 226 through to 252 of the Court Book. The Tribunal's findings can be found at pages 239 to 252. The Tribunal approached its task by deciding first whether there was a non-compliance by the Applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice and considered the evidence, including the Applicant's claims, and found:
The Tribunal does not accept the review applicant's claims. The Tribunal finds that ‘Babu Ram’ and ‘Babu Lal’ are the same person. That is, the review applicant's father has used both names. The Tribunal finds that the review applicant's father resides in Fiji. The Tribunal finds that the review applicant has a sister, Roshini Lata, who also resides in Fiji.[2]
[2] See Court Book at page 241
The Tribunal then set out its reasons by considering:
a)Documentary evidence.
b)Other evidence.
c)The Applicant's explanations.
d)The interview with the Applicant's fiancée.
e)The application form.
f)The birth certificate of Roshini Lata.
g)Inconsistent accounts of the meeting with Applicant's uncle.
h)Other matters.
The Tribunal made the following conclusions:
·The Applicant's father has used both names, Babu Ram and Babu Lal. Documents which name Babu Lal in fact concern the Applicant's father. Kala Wati's death certificate shows that ‘Babu Lal’ was her partner.
·The Applicant's mother was Kala Wati.
·Roshini Lata is the natural daughter of Kala Wati. This is shown by the birth certificate and the mother's death certificate.
·The ‘father figure’ who appeared at the Applicant's engagement was his natural father. The guests and the fiancée referred to him as the Applicant's father because he was the Applicant's father.
·The application form accurately showed that the Applicant's father and sister were in Fiji.
·The fiancée informed the Department that the Applicant's father and sister attended the engagement because that was what she had been informed by the Applicant and his relatives.
·The Applicant's father Babu Ram also known as Babu Lal, resides in Fiji with his daughter (the Applicant's sister) Roshini Lata. They have always resided in Fiji and the Applicant has not been estranged from them.
The Tribunal found that there was non-compliance by the Applicant in the way described in the s.107 notice. The Tribunal found that the Applicant breached s.101 of the Act and then considered the discretion to cancel the visa under s.109 of the Migration Act.
The Tribunal considers the exercise of its discretion at pages 250 through to 252 of the Court Book. The Tribunal considered the likely effect on a decision to grant a visa or immigration clear the visa holder of the correct information or the genuine document. The Tribunal considered the circumstances in which the non-compliance occurred, also the present circumstances of the visa holder, the subsequent behaviour of the visa holder, any other instances of non-compliance by the visa holder, the time that has elapsed since the non-compliance, any breaches of the law since the non-compliance and the seriousness of those breaches and any contribution made by the whole of the community.
The Tribunal reached this conclusion:
Had the review applicant provided the correct information he would not have been granted a visa. The information he provided (as outlined above) was false. The Tribunal finds that the review applicant deliberately provided that incorrect information in order to satisfy the requirements of the visa. The Tribunal carefully considered the review applicant's present circumstances in Australia: he continues to reside with his brother, and was employed. However, the review applicant has lived in Fiji as an adult and has close family and other relatives there, and his fiancée resides there.
After considering the legislation, and the evidence cumulatively, and particularly matters discussed above and the arguments made by the review applicant, the Tribunal finds that the reasons for not cancelling do not outweigh the reasons for cancelling the visa.[3]
[3] See Court Book at page 252
The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the Other Family (Residence) (Class BU) visa held by the Applicant.
Application for Judicial Review
In the Applicant's amended application he relies on the following grounds:
i)The Tribunal committed jurisdictional error by making findings of fact having serious consequences for the Applicant without having before it any evidence on which it could lawfully make those findings.
ii)Having fallen into jurisdictional error in relation to its findings about the putative father's place of residence at the relevant time, the Tribunal's decision not to exercise its discretion in relation to the cancellation of the visa miscarried.
Ground One:
The particulars of the first ground, that the Tribunal made findings of fact without evidence upon which it could make those findings, was said to be that at the time of his application for permanent residence on 10th April 2000 the Applicant claimed that his father, Babu Ram, was resident in Canada and that he had no contact with him. He listed as his only sibling a half-brother living in Australia. The Applicant was granted a remaining relative visa on 4th March 2003. The visa was cancelled on 5th November 2004 on the grounds that the Applicant had made incorrect statements about his father's place of residence and, by omission, about having a half-sister.
The Tribunal concluded that a person called Babu Lal who was present at the Applicant's engagement ceremony in Fiji on 18th February 2004 was the Applicant's father. The Tribunal also concluded that another person present at the ceremony, Roshini Lata, was the Applicant's sister or half-sister.
Even if it was open to the Tribunal to find that the person present at the engagement ceremony on 18th February 2004 was the Applicant's father, there was no evidence before the Tribunal that the same person was residing in Fiji on 10th April 2000 when the Applicant applied for his visa. Nevertheless, the Tribunal concluded, without revealing any reasoning that he had always resided in Fiji. Although the Tribunal acknowledged that the onus of establishing the facts justifying cancellation of a visa rested with the Tribunal, and that in satisfying itself of those facts it should bear in mind the gravity of the consequences for the Applicant, it acted recklessly by disregarding the fact that it had no evidence to challenge the Applicant's claim that his father was resident in Canada when he applied for the visa nearly four years previously.
Ground Two:
As to the second ground, that the Tribunal's decision not to exercise its discretion in relation to the cancellation of the visa had miscarried, the particulars of that claim are that the Applicant claimed that he was not aware of the existence of Roshini Lata at the time of his visa application. If the Tribunal had properly exercised its functions and concluded that there was no evidence that the Applicant's statement about his father was incorrect, then the fact that an incorrect statement by omission concerning the half-sister was made unknowingly would have been relevant in the exercise of the discretion whether or not to cancel the visa.
The Applicant’s Submissions
The Applicant was represented by Mr Michael Jones, solicitor. He submitted that the Tribunal must confine its findings to jurisdictional fact and particulars of non-compliance contained in the original notice under s.107 of the Migration Act. If, and only if, non-compliance in relation to those particulars is established, the Tribunal may then consider other relevant matters in relation to the exercise of its discretion. (See Saleem v Migration Review Tribunal & Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 234).
The power to cancel the Applicant's visa arose under the Act if, and only if, the alleged incorrect statements were incorrect at the time they were made on 10th April 2000.
As to the Applicant's father, Mr Jones submitted that the entirety of the allegations against the Applicant revolved around the identity of two people present at the Applicant's engagement ceremony in Fiji in February 2004, namely Babu Lal and Roshini Lata. The Tribunal found that they are the Applicant's father and sister. Although the Applicant denies that Babu Lal was his father, Mr Jones conceded that it was open on the evidence for the Tribunal to come to that conclusion. The real issue, however, was whether the Applicant's statement on 10th April 2000 that his father resided in Canada was incorrect.
Mr Jones submitted that noting that the consequences for finding against the visa holder were serious, and referred to the judgment of
Wilcox J in Tarasovski & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Local Government & Ethnic Affairs (1993) 45 FCR 570 at 573:
It follows that a Court should find that the person has contravened the Act only where the evidence establishes that proposition to a high degree of satisfaction.
Mr Jones submitted that the only evidence before the Tribunal in this case was that the putative father was present in Fiji in February 2004. While it may be reasonable in some circumstances to rely on a presumption of continuity of residence, such a presumption was in fact contradicted by the evidence before the Tribunal. When considering whether to grant the visa in the first place, the previously constituted Tribunal considered evidence from the Applicant and his half-brother as well as from a third witness. In that case the onus was on the Applicant to prove his case. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant's father was residing in Canada at the time of the application. This finding of fact was evidence that was before the Tribunal to rebut any presumption of continuity of residence.
The Tribunal also had documentary evidence before it that would rebut the presumption. This was in the form of a Fijian driver's licence in the name of the putative father which had originally been issued in 1982 and renewed annually until 1997, at which point the renewal ceased.
Applying the test as stated by Wilcox J in Tarasovski, there was no evidence before the Tribunal which could have given rise to "a high degree of satisfaction" that the putative father was residing in Fiji on 10th April 2000 and therefore that the statement made in the visa application was incorrect. The Tribunal's leap from the finding that the father was in Fiji in February 2004 to a finding that he must have been residing there some four years earlier involved jurisdictional error for failure to provide the correct legal test.
Turning to the allegation relating to the Applicant's sister, Mr Jones submitted that this allegation did not require a leap into the speculative past since the Applicant's answer on the application form would be rendered incorrect merely by her existence. He noted that the delegate found unequivocally that Roshini Lata was the Applicant's half-sister. This was no doubt because the strongest piece of evidence of the relationship is a comparison of her birth certificate with the Applicant's showing the same mother but different fathers. Mr Jones conceded that such a finding was open on the evidence.
However, the Applicant consistently claimed that he did not even know about this woman's existence, let alone whether she was actually his sister. The finding that she was his half-sister is not a finding that he knew she existed. There was no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant's claim was untrue. In fact the Tribunal did not even make a clear finding that the Applicant knew of her existence.
In the exercise of its discretion the Tribunal must take into account all of the findings of fact that it has made. If certain significant findings were not open to it in law, then the exercise of the discretion miscarries. If there was no evidence that the Applicant's father was not residing in Canada in March 2000, and no evidence that he knew about the existence of the putative sister, then the Tribunal may well have come to the conclusion that the discretion should be exercised in the Applicant's favour.
Mr Jones submitted that the decision of the Tribunal should be set aside and the matter remitted for reconsideration in accordance with law.
The First Respondent’s Submissions
For the First respondent Minister Mr Cleary of counsel submitted that the Applicant's argument in respect of the first ground of review should be rejected for these reasons:
a)Contrary to the Applicant's submission the Tribunal referred to relevant authority that the onus of proof that the Applicant had made incorrect statements lay on the Minister and that a high degree of persuasion is required in cases of this nature.
b)In other words, the Tribunal applied the correct legal test for cases such as the present case, namely the test as set out in Tarasovski's case.
c)Further, given the clear acknowledgment by the Tribunal that a high degree of satisfaction is required, there is no basis to suggest that the Tribunal did not in fact apply such a degree of satisfaction in making its decision.
d)The Tribunal's finding that the Applicant's father and sister always resided in Fiji and that the Applicant had not been estranged from them is based upon more than the direct evidence that the father and sister were at the Applicant's engagement party in February 2004.
e)As well as that direct evidence that the father and sister were residing in Fiji at the time of the Applicant's engagement, the Tribunal's decision is predicated on the finding that it did not accept the Applicant's claims and that the Tribunal gave detailed reasons for that finding.
Mr Cleary submitted that there was nothing in the Tribunal's reasoning that indicated a failure by it to apply a high degree of satisfaction to the evidence before it or that reversed the onus of proof. Thus, he submitted that the first ground had not been made out and should be rejected.
In respect of the second ground of review, the Applicant accepted that the information was incorrect and that its provision was a contravention of s.101 of the Migration Act. Mr Clearly submitted that on that concession alone, the application for review should be dismissed with costs. He submitted that the second ground of review is misconceived for the following reasons:
a)The Applicant did not contend that he did not provide incorrect information so far as the information concerning the existence of his sister was concerned. In other words, he did not contend that the information was other than false.
b)Whether the Applicant knew the information to be false is not relevant. Under s.100 of the Migration Act, an answer to a question is incorrect even if the Applicant did not know the answer was incorrect.
c)So far as Regulation 2.41(d ) is concerned, the Tribunal dealt with that subclause at page 251 of the Court Book. The operation of subclause (d) in Reg.2.41 is not relevant to whether or not the Applicant knew (or did not know) of the falsity of his answers.
He submitted therefore that the second ground of review should also be rejected.
In considering these matters I am satisfied that I should accept the Applicant's submission that there was no evidence before the Tribunal which could have given rise to a high degree of satisfaction that the Applicant's father was residing in Fiji on 10th April 2000 and that the statement made in the visa application was incorrect. The evidence did not allow the Tribunal to rely on a presumption of continuity of residence because that presumption was in fact contradicted by evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal previously constituted found that the Applicant's father was residing in Canada at the time of the application. It is, in my view, correct to say that this finding of fact was evidence that was before the Tribunal to rebut any such presumption of continuity of residence. I am satisfied that the first ground has been made out.
As to the evidence relating to the Applicant's sister, I am satisfied that it was open to the Tribunal on the evidence that Roshini Lata is the Applicant's sister based on the evidence of the birth certificate. The Applicant's evidence about the sister was incorrect and its provision was a contravention of s.110 of the Migration Act. To my mind, this case turns on whether or not the Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion in relation to the finding about the Applicant's sister. The lack of knowledge does not make any difference to the correctness or otherwise of the statement. The lack of knowledge is most certainly relevant to the exercise of discretion.
As Mr Jones submitted, and I believe correctly, in the exercise of its discretion the Tribunal must take into account all of the findings of fact that it has made. If certain significant findings were not open to it in law, then the exercise of the discretion miscarries. If there was no evidence that the Applicant's father was not residing in Canada in March 2000 and no evidence that the Applicant knew about the existence of the sister, then the Tribunal may well have come to the conclusion that the discretion should be exercised in the Applicant's favour.
In my view, that is an attractive submission which should be accepted. I am satisfied that the exercise of the discretion miscarried. Accordingly, I propose to grant the application.
I certify that the preceding fifty (50) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: V. Lee
Date: 12 September 2007
0
2
0