CIT17 v Minister for Immigration and Anor

[2018] FCCA 330

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CIT17 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2018] FCCA 330

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Immigration Assessment Authority – application for review of Tribunal’s decision in respect of an application for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa – the Authority was entitled to take into account the findings made in respect of the Refugee Convention in determining the issue of complementary protection and whether it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate – no jurisdictional error identified – amended application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.5H, 5J, 36, 473CB, 473DD, 473DE, 476

Cases cited:

MZACX v the Ministerfor Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1212

Applicant: CIT17

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

File Number: SYG 1694 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 12 February 2018

Date of Last Submission: 12 February 2018

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 12 February 2018

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr B Mostafa

Solicitors for the Applicant: Fragomen

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr T Reilly

Solicitors for the Respondents: Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The amended application is dismissed.

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

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 1694 of 2017

CIT17

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for a Constitutional writ within the Court’s jurisdiction under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) in respect of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (“the Authority”) made under Part 7AA of the Act affirming a decision of the delegate not to grant the applicant a Safe Haven Enterprise visa. 

2. The applicant was found to be a citizen of Afghanistan and his claims were assessed against that country. The applicant was found to be a Hazara Shia and arrived in Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival on 1 November 2012. 

3. The applicant alleged that from 2008 he worked as a taxi driver driving passengers between Malestan and Ghazni. Around October 2010, the applicant agreed to deliver a package from a school principal whom he knew and was stopped by the Taliban in Qarabagh and the applicant was accused of being a teacher and was severely beaten and raped and forced to watch another detainee also being raped. The applicant said he escaped when the Taliban were at prayers and fled to Quetta, Pakistan.

4. The applicant fears if returned to Pakistan that he will be tortured or killed by the Taliban, Daesh, or other anti-Government elements (“AGEs”) because they perceive him to be an infidel and supporter of the international community/the west, and in opposition to the AGEs due to being Hazara and Shia, because they believed him to be a teacher and because he would returning westernised and as a failed asylum seeker. 

5. The applicant also has three brothers who came earlier and have been granted protection in Australia. The applicant has one of his sisters residing in Quetta, Pakistan, and his remaining four sisters live in Malestan.

6. On 11 November 2016, the delegate found the applicant failed to meet the criteria for the grant of a Safe Haven Enterprise visa. The applicant provided a statement in support of his application for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa. The applicant under the heading “Why I think the authorities of that county cannot or will not protect me if I were to go back to that country” asserted that the government is weak and struggles to protect itself. Under the heading “Why I think relocation to another area in my country will still befall me to the same harm”, the applicant relevantly said:

   There is nowhere in Afghanistan I can live safely. Even Kabul it is not safe. The security situation is deteriorating and will only get worse when the international troops withdraw completely. The Taliban will then have a free reign.

7. Further, the applicant believed he had a profile with the Taliban and that the Taliban informants are everywhere and that they could trace him wherever he goes. 

The Authority’s decision

1. The Authority wrote to the applicant on 18 October 2016 identifying that the matter application for the visa had been referred to the Authority for review. The letter identified there were limited circumstances in which the Authority could receive new information and provided an attached fact sheet and practice direction giving the applicant an opportunity to put on new information and submissions. 

2. Submissions were provided to the Authority dated 7 November 2016 which were referred to in the Authority’s reasons and the Authority identified the content of the submissions disagreeing with the delegate’s decision as not being new information and had regard to the same. The Authority identified certain articles which were not before the delegate and which constituted new information. The Authority identified the content of those articles and was not satisfied that they could not have been provided earlier or that they contained credible personal information and was not satisfied that the requirements of s 473DD of the Act were met in respect of those reports. 

3. The Authority also identified that the Authority had obtained country information consistent with s 473DE(3)(a) of the Act. On 4 April 2017, the Authority wrote to the applicant and invited the applicant to comment on the information which referred to the emergent threat of Islamic State and raised questions about whether the group had capability to orchestrate anything beyond infrequent or occasional high-profile attacks in Afghanistan. The applicant was also invited to comment on the information that the group’s presence in the country is confined mostly to the Pakistan border and that sources indicate the group continues to be weakened and is struggling to control territory and its efforts to establish itself in other parts of Afghanistan have in large part failed. 

4. Other information was identified in the letter which was identified as being relevant to whether or not there was a real chance or real risk of the applicant being seriously harmed by the Islamic State, the Taliban or any other AGEs for reason of the applicant’s religion or ethnicity in major urban areas like Kabul and Mazar-e-Sharif in Balkh province and that the applicant’s fear of persecution may not relate to all areas of Afghanistan. There was also further information identified in the letter as to the real chance or real risk of significant harm in Mazar-e-Sharif. 

5. The applicant’s migration agents responded by email dated 15 April 2017 and also responded to the articles identified by the Authority and in particular, the targeting of Hazaras and also responded to the reasonableness of relocation to Mazar-e-Sharif. Those submissions focused in detail on the UNHCR guidelines and also contained further country information.  The Authority was satisfied that information could not have been provided to and considered by the delegate and was satisfied there were exceptional circumstances to justify considering the new information. The Authority also made reference to other information provided and identified having assessed this case on the specific and individual circumstances of the applicant currently before the Authority. 

6. The Authority identified the background to the application to the visa application. The Authority identified having regard to the information and regard to the material referred under s 473CB of the Act. The Authority identified the applicant’s claims and referred to accepting that the applicant may come to the adverse attention of the Taliban if he is recognised and his presence is brought to their attention but did not accept that he had been named of a Taliban blacklist that had resulted in the Taliban looking for him or that has given him a profile with the organisation nationally.

7. The Authority also noted that the applicant did not claim he previously faced problems while remaining in Afghanistan on account of his relationship or familial proximity to any of his brothers and nor has he raised any claims on the basis of his brothers’ circumstances.

8. The Authority identified the relevant law. The Authority accepted that the applicant’s appearance identifies him as a Hazara and that as a Hazara Shia he is at greater risk while travelling to and around his home area.  The Authority accepted the applicant previously held a profile of interest to the Taliban who captured him in Ghazni before his departure and that he fears being recognised and informed on by local civilians who the Authority accepted are aware he was previously captured and would notice his return. 

9. The Authority referred to taking into account the applicant’s previous profile and country information about the risks faced by Hazara Shias and those imputed with a government/international community association on Hazarajat roads. It was in those circumstances the Authority found the applicant faces a small but real chance of serious harm through being kidnapped and/or killed or subject to physical ill treatment by insurgents in or in accessing his home region. 

10. The Authority referred to the requirements of s 5J(1)(c) of the Act that the real chance of persecution must relate to all the areas of the receiving country and that the Authority had identified another place within Afghanistan with a substantial Hazara population where the applicant could reside without a real chance of persecution, being Mazar-e-Sharif, the capital of Balkh province. 

11. The Authority explicitly found that the Afghan government will maintain control over Mazar-e-Sharif in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Authority also found that it was satisfied that state protection would not be withheld on the basis of the applicant being Hazara and/or Shia. The Authority found it was satisfied the government maintained effective control in Mazar-e-Sharif and the Balkh province government has been actively managing clearance operations in the districts of Balkh.

12. The Authority referred to an article from the Long War Journal dated 8 April 2017 regarding American and Afghan soldiers being killed by Islamic State fighters. The Authority found the representative’s suggestion that they will strike on softer targets such as Hazaras to be speculative. The Authority was not satisfied that the incident changes the Authority’s assessment about the Islamic State’s limited foothold or influence or capacity for occasional attacks in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

13. The Authority found that the recent attacks in Mazar-e-Sharif have been occasional and had no sectarian motivation. The Authority was satisfied the applicant does not currently hold a pro-government/pro-security forces or international community profile, nor any proximity to persons who do, or relatives that do, and nor is there information to suggest he would upon return.

14. The Authority did accept certain aspects of conflict will affect Mazar-e-Sharif and that Kunduz is in the neighbouring province and that that city is under Taliban control. The Authority considered the specificity of the targeting to be relevant and did not support that the applicant, whom the Authority had not accepted would have the requisite proximity to such institutions, will face a real chance of harm. 

15. The Authority was not satisfied there is other evidence that the Islamic State, the Islamic movement of Uzbekistan, Al Qaeda, Hezb-e-Islami, the Haqqani Network or the Taliban targeting Shias in or around Mazar-e-Sharif. It was in those circumstances, that the Authority found that the October 2016 attack is not attributable to any of those groups or that the incident is indicative of the onset of sectarian campaigning both by them or any other insurgent or terrorist groups. 

16. The Authority was not satisfied that state institutions are weakened such that they will change, or that Mazar-e-Sharif will otherwise fall to the control of the Taliban, the Islamic State or other insurgents in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Authority was not satisfied that sectarianism will increase in the reasonably foreseeable future such that violence against Hazaras/Shias in Mazar-e-Sharif will extend beyond sporadic attacks. The Authority found the chance of the applicant being seriously harmed by Islamic State, the Taliban or any other AGE in Mazar-e-Sharif to be remote.

17. The Authority, having considered all the evidence, was not satisfied the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future from AGEs or others in society on the basis of the applicant being a Hazara and/or Shia in Mazar-e-Sharif. 

18. The Authority was not satisfied the Taliban or other insurgents would have maintained an interest in the applicant in relation to the serious incident, nor that they have developed an interest in him for any other reason subsequent to his 2010 departure. The Authority was not satisfied the incident in 2010 has bestowed upon the applicant a profile such that almost seven years later, he himself will be identified as being a teacher, supporter or advocate of education, or even having a previous personal association with a principal if he returned to a major urban centre such as Mazar-e-Sharif or that the Taliban or others would seek to follow him or harm him in this city. 

19. The Authority found there is no real chance the applicant will be harmed in the reasonably foreseeable future for his previous imputed teacher profile or any other actual or perceived connection or association to his principal friend or the education system if he returned to Mazar-e-Sharif. 

20. The Authority was satisfied the applicant has no specific interest to AGEs such that he would be personally targeted by Mazar-e-Sharif.  The Authority was not satisfied the applicant would have requisite proximity to persons with a direct connection to the government or international community as to give rise to real chance of serious harm.  The Authority was not satisfied that in a major urban area like Mazar-e-Sharif, which has a diverse ethnic population and has seen growth from returnees and internally displaced persons over the years, that the applicant would face a real chance of being seriously harmed as a Hazara Shia returnee failed asylum seeker from the west after having several years living in Australia, even taking into account that he has family residing in Australia and would be returning with western mannerisms or appearance. The Authority was not satisfied the applicant would otherwise serious harm for any actual or imputed association or connection with the government, international community or the west.

21. The Authority was not satisfied the applicant will face discrimination which will threaten his capacity to subsist, nor that it will manifest in any other way that would constitute serious harm under the meaning of s 5J of the Act.  The Authority was not satisfied there is a real chance that the applicant’s fear of returning would result in a deterioration of his mental health or that he will require treatment not available in Mazar-e-Sharif. 

22. The Authority was not satisfied that the applicant would face a real chance of suffering serious harm through generalised violence in Mazar-i-Sharif. The Authority was not satisfied that the applicant would face a real chance of harm in Mazar-e-Sharif as a consequence of criminality. 

23. The Authority was not satisfied the applicant would face a real chance of being killed or otherwise suffering serious harm in Mazar-e-Sharif in relation to his previous imputed teacher profile, for his Hazara Shia race and religion, because he has lived outside Afghanistan for several years, including in a western country such as Australia where he has family members and where he also sought asylum, has become westernised and adopted western mannerisms and appearance, nor for any actual or imputed connection with or support for the Afghan government, western or international community or any contrary imputed opinion of being anti-Taliban/Islamic State/AGEs. 

24. The Authority had regard to the fact that Mazar-e-Sharif is a place that the applicant has never resided and has no identifiable links and would need to travel there from Kabul. The Authority also considered the risks on generalised violence and criminality.  The Authority was not satisfied that these various factors, nor any other circumstances of the applicant would individually or cumulatively lead to a well-founded fear of persecution in Mazar-e-Sharif or in accessing that city in the reasonably foreseeable future upon return.

25. It was in these circumstances, the Authority found the applicant did not meet the requirements of the definition of refugee in s 5H(1) of the Act and found the applicant did not meet the criteria under s 36(2)(a) of the Act. 

Assessment of complementary protection

1. The Authority then turned to the requirements of complementary protection. The Authority made express reference to having found that the applicant does not face a real chance of being killed or otherwise suffering serious harm in Mazar-e-Sharif in relation to his previous imputed teacher profile, for his Hazara Shia race and religion, because he has lived outside Afghanistan for several years, including in a western country such as Australia where he had sought asylum, has become westernised and adopted western mannerisms and appearance, nor for any actual or imputed connection with or support for the Afghan government, western or international community or any contrary imputed opinion of being anti-Taliban/Islamic State/AGE. 

2. The Authority noted when considered cumulatively, the Authority found the applicant would not face a real chance of serious harm. The Authority then found for the same reasons and because real chance equates to real risk that it was not satisfied that the applicant faces a real risk of suffering significant harm in returning to and residing in Mazar-e-Sharif.

3. The Authority then referred to societal discrimination and did not accept that the applicant will face discrimination in Mazar-e-Sharif that would amount to significant harm for the purposes of s 36(2A) of the Act.

4. The Authority referred to the chance of the applicant suffering serious harm from violence targeted against him or from generalised violence or criminality in Mazar-e-Sharif and was not satisfied that the applicant faces a real risk of suffering significant harm in returning to and residing in Mazar-e-Sharif.  The Authority referred to considering the applicant’s circumstances cumulatively and was not satisfied the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm in returning to and residing in Mazar-e-Sharif.

5. The Authority then turned to the applicant’s personal circumstances to consider whether it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate to Mazar-e-Sharif. The Authority expressly referred to the applicant’s individual circumstances and had regard to those factors as well as to the country information provided in support.

6. The Authority addressed UNHCR guidelines and that there are exceptions to the requirements of external support, being single able-bodied men and married couples of working age without identified specific vulnerabilities. The Authority accepted that there is unemployment and underemployment in Mazar-e-Sharif and that the applicant had not lived in any other part of Afghanistan apart from Malestan and that he had not been to Mazar-e-Sharif and did not know anyone else there. The Authority accepted the applicant will face difficulties in establishing himself but was not satisfied that the applicant could not overcome those difficulties. The Authority made reference to a large Hazara community and that the applicant had demonstrated that he is resourceful and resilient and has successfully lived apart from his family and settled in unfamiliar places. 

1. The Authority referred to Mazar-e-Sharif being under the effective control of the Afghan government and the country information indicated that although large urban areas offer greater opportunities for employment and access to services. The Authority identified that Mazar-e-Sharif has been reported to be one of the biggest commercial and financial centres in Afghanistan and its political and economic weight is big and getting bigger.

2. The Authority referred to the applicant’s employment prospects and found that Mazar-e-Sharif is one of the biggest commercial centres and that more stable security and greater economic opportunities will be conducive to the applicant finding employment. The Authority expressly referred to the applicant’s personal experience of working on a farm and driving a taxi and working for a tiling company. The Authority expressly referred to having taken into account the withdrawal of international presence and the situation regarding IDPs and returnees. The Authority found the applicant had no identified vulnerabilities and given his industry relevant skills in a key sector and that he is able-bodied and of working age, the Authority was not satisfied the applicant will not be able to obtain employment or shelter or access basic services.

3. The Authority was not satisfied the applicant’s fear or anxiety is a vulnerability which would prevent him from obtaining employment in Mazar-e-Sharif.  The Authority was satisfied that in Mazar-ie-Sharif the applicant would be able earn a livelihood and that he could access the necessary infrastructure and essential services to sustain himself and meet the basic necessities of life.

4. The Authority referred to the difficulties faced by the applicant in relation to where his wife and children reside and did not accept that the separation would be unreasonable. The Authority was satisfied it would be reasonable for the applicant to remain in Mazar-e-Sharif and that he could make arrangements once he had settled for his family to join him. 

5. The Authority made reference to the representative’s submissions about the relocation option being a durable solution and economically viable.  It was in those circumstances the Authority referred to the fact that insecurity has affected Mazar-e-Sharif and the Authority then made reference to having found that such incidents were infrequent and that the applicant would not face a real chance or real risk of serious or significant harm on the basis of targeted harm or generalised violence or criminality either within the city or whilst accessing it upon returning. Having considered the applicant’s personal circumstances, the Authority was satisfied it is reasonable for the applicant to remain in Mazar-e-Sharif, a place where he will be able to secure shelter, employment and services upon return even in the absence of any initial familial or other familiar support network. 

6. The Authority was satisfied in these circumstances it was reasonable for the application to relocate to Mazar-e-Sharif and found that that was an area of the country where there was not a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm. 

7. It was in these circumstances the Authority found that there are not substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being returned from Australia to Afghanistan there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm. The Authority found the applicant did not meet the criteria under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act and affirmed the decision under review. 

Before this Court

1. The grounds in the amended application as follows:

   1. The Authority erred in misconstruing or misapplying the test of whether it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate within Afghanistan.

   Particulars

   a. The Authority accepted that the applicant was a Hazara Shia: Decision [10].

   b. In answer to the Authority’s request for comments on information that was said to be relevant to whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to Mazar-e-Sharif, the applicant submitted that:

   i. the environment in Mazar-e-Sharif was “increasingly dangerous”;

   ii. country information showed that there had been many security incidents, including incidents involving deaths, in Mazar-e-Sharif in 2015;

   iii. the region was unstable for Hazara Shia;

   iv. as a Hazara Shia who was not from Mazar-e-Sharif, the applicant “would face a threat of serious harm” in Mazar-e-Sharif;

   v. observations that the security and risk of serious harm in Mazar-e-Sharif was better than in the applicant’s home area or in Kabul did not sufficiently answer the question of whether it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate to Mazar-e-Sharif.

   c. The Authority:

   i. accepted that the security situation in Afghanistan remained fluid and had declined nationally in 2015 and 2016: Decision [57]; and

   ii. accepted that attacks that affect civilians occur within Mazar-e-Sharif: Decision [57]; but

   iii. found that the applicant did not face a real risk of serious harm or a real chance of significant harm in Mazar-e-Sharif: Decision [60] and [69].

   d. The Authority found that it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate to Mazar-e-Sharif: Decision [78]. In doing so, at Decision [70]-[78], and particularly at [77]-[78,] the Authority erred in:

   i. treating its finding, that the risk of serious or significant harm faced by the applicant in Mazar-e-Sharif was remote, as conclusive of whether it was reasonable for the applicant to face the risk of such harm that existed in Mazar-e-Sharif; or

   ii. Failing to consider whether at risk of serious or significant harm that was remote impacted upon whether it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate to Mazar-e-Sharif.

   2. The Authority erred in failing to consider whether the completion of the withdrawal of international troops from Afghanistan would mean that the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm in the reasonably foreseeable future.

   Particulars

   a. The applicant stated in the statutory declaration that accompanied his visa application that the security situation in Afghanistan was “deteriorating and will only get worse when the international troops withdraw completely”: CB 69 [34].

   b. The applicant provided to the Delegate country information supporting the proposition that the withdrawal of international troops would result in a worsening of the security situation in Afghanistan: Institute for the Study of War paper dated 23 February 2016.

   c. In assessing the future volatility of the situation in Afghanistan, the Delegate stated that “While the withdrawal of international forces is generally interpreted as impacting negatively on the stability of the country, the maintenance of a larger than anticipated post-2016 force, currently 9,800, is positively regarded” (citations omitted): CB 157.

   d. A country information report prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT Country Information Report: Afghanistan (18 September 2015)), which was before the Authority, noted that:

   i. the security situation across the country deteriorated significantly over the last 12-18 months, as anti-government groups intensified their efforts and the international military contingent gradually withdrew (at [2.33]); and

   ii. the ongoing reduction in the international forces in Afghanistan was having an impact on the ANDSF’S ability to maintain government control across the country: at [5.3].

   e. The Authority did not consider whether the withdrawal of international troops from Afghanistan would mean that the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm in the reasonably foreseeable future.

   f. In light of the matters pleaded at particulars a to d above, the failure of the Authority referred to in the preceding particular was an error, either in failing to consider a claim, an integer of a claim or relevant material.

Ground 1

1. Mr Mostafa of counsel who appeared for the applicant contended that the Authority had made two errors in relation to considering the reasonableness of self-relocation as formulated in ground 1(d)(i) and (ii).

2. Mr Mostafa submitted that the Authority had made the type of error identified by the learned Kenny J in MZACX v the Ministerfor Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1212 (“MZACX”). Mr Mostafa submitted that the Authority had in substance treated as conclusive the proposition that the applicant would not face a real chance or real risk of serious or significant harm in determining whether it was reasonable to relocate.

3. The Authority’s reasons are not to be read with a keen eye for error. I do not accept that the Authority conflated the issue of reasonable relocation in the way that was identified in MZACX. The Authority’s reasons reflect a correct identification of the relevant law in respect of complementary protection and the Authority was entitled to take into account the findings made in respect of the Refugee Convention in determining the issue of complementary protection and whether it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate.

4. It was not necessary for the Authority to make a finding that it was reasonable for the applicant to face the risk of harm that that existed in Mazar-E-Sharif as an express finding in relation to the reasonableness of relocation. It is however, apparent that the Authority took into account the findings made by the Authority in determining the reasonableness of relocation and the Authority was entitled to do so.

5. In relation to ground 1(d)(i), I reject the submission that the Authority treated the issue of whether the applicant faced serious or significant harm as conclusive in determining reasonable relocation. No jurisdictional error as alleged in ground 1(d)(i) is made out. 

6. In relation to ground 1(d)(ii), Mr Mostafa submitted that the Authority had failed to consider whether a risk of serious or significant harm that was remote impacted upon whether it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate as on a fair reading, the Authority’s reasons reflect the taking into account as expressly referred in the reasons of the Authority as summarised above, the findings under the Refugee Convention. 

7. The Authority’s reasons in paragraph 77 must be read in context of the whole of the Authority’s reasons concerning reasonableness of relocation. There was no failure by the Authority to take into account the risk of serious harm or significant harm in determining whether it reasonable for the applicant to relocate as contended in ground 1(d)(ii).  No jurisdictional error as alleged in ground 1 is made out. 

Ground 2

1. In relation to ground 2, Mr Mostafa took the court to the applicant’s statement dated 29 January 2016, the Institute for the Study of War paper dated 23 February 2016 and the DFAT country report dated 18 September 2015 that identified a risk of withdrawal of international troops from Afghanistan.

2. Mr Mostafa argued that the withdrawal of international troops from Afghanistan was an integer of the applicant’s claim that had to be the subject of express finding and that as there had been a failure to make such a finding, the Authority had failed to complete its statutory task of review constituting a jurisdictional error.

3. On a fair reading of the Authority’s reasons as referred to above, the Authority subsumed the applicant’s claimed fear of troop withdrawal in its finding in relation to government control in Mazar-e-Sharif.

4. This is not a case where it should be inferred that the Authority has failed to take into account an integer of the applicant’s claims in relation to the withdrawal of troops. In fact, the Authority’s reasons expressly refer to the withdrawal of troops twice in the findings made by the Authority. Accordingly, no jurisdictional error as mentioned in ground 2 is made out. 

5. As the amended application fails to make out any jurisdictional error, the amended application is dismissed. 

I certify that the preceding fifty-eight (58) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Associate: 

Date:  19 February 2018