CQD18 v Minister for Home Affairs

[2018] FCCA 3071

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CQD18 v MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS & ANOR [2018] FCCA 3071

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Immigration Assessment Authority – application to extend time under s 477 of the Act – satisfactory explanation for the delay – necessary in the interest of the administration of justice to extend time under s 477 of the Act – whether the adverse findings of the Authority were speculative – whether the Authority failed to take into account a relevant consideration – whether the Authority failed to consider an integer of the applicant’s claims – no error made out by the grounds in the amended application – amended application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.5AAA, 5H, 5J, 36, 473CB, 473DD, 473HD, 476, 477

Applicant: CQD18

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

File Number: SYG 1420 of 2018

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 29 October 2018

Date of Last Submission: 29 October 2018

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 29 October 2018

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr R Turner
Turner Coulson Immigration Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms N Laing

Solicitors for the Respondents: Mills Oakley

ORDERS

1. Grant leave to the applicant to rely upon the amended application annexed to the submissions filed on 22 October 2018 and the Court dispenses with the electronic filing of a copy of the same.

2. Time for the proceedings under s 477 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) is extended up to and included 21 May 2018.

3. The amended application is dismissed.

4. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $4,800.00.

DATE OF ORDER: 29 October 2018

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1420 of 2018

CQD18

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR HOME AFFAIRS

First Respondent

IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an Constitutional writ within the Court’s jurisdiction under s 476 of the Act in respect of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (“the Authority”) under Part 7AA of the Act made on 21 December 2017 affirming the decision of the delegate not to grant the applicant a Safe Haven Enterprise visa.

2. The applicant was found to be a citizen of Sri Lanka and his claims were assessed against that country. The applicant was found to be a Tamil from the Batticaloa District in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka. The applicant claimed to fear harm by reason of being imputed as a supporter of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (“LTTE”) and by reason of his and his family’s assistance to the LTTE. The applicant also claimed to fear harm from the Special Task Force (“STF”), the Sri Lankan authorities and the paramilitaries because of being a Tamil from the Eastern Province and his real or perceived imputed support of the LTTE in the past and/or resurgence. The applicant also claimed to fear harm by reason of his illegal departure and for being a failed asylum seeker.

3. The applicant arrived in Australia on 21 November 2012 as an unauthorised maritime arrival. On 19 May 2017, the delegate found that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for the grant of a Safe Haven Enterprise visa.

4. On 24 May 2017, the Authority wrote to applicant informing the applicant that the application for the visa had been referred to the Authority for review. The letter provided an attached fact sheet and Practice Direction giving the applicant an opportunity to put on new information and submissions.

5. The applicant did put on submissions under cover of an email dated 14 June 2017, that annexed a document dated 14 June 2017. The document annexed to the email provided a different email address to the email address enclosing the submissions and sent to the Authority. The applicant had earlier provided to the Department the same email address as appeared on the statement attached to the email identifying an email address. The Authority referred to and took into account in its reasons the submission and that the material and expressly referred to the same. The Authority had regard to the material provided by the Secretary under s 473CB of the Act. The Authority considered the new information in accordance with s 473DD of the Act and was not satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances to justify considering the same.

6. The Authority summarised the applicant’s claims, which relevantly included that he had a father who supported the LTTE by providing food from his farm for the LTTE. The Authority referred in the summary of the applicant’s claims to the proposition that the father personally knew the LTTE commander, who sometimes came to their house, and that LTTE cadres came to the farmhouse to get food, and that the applicant’s family knew most of the LTTE members in their area, and that the villagers were aware of the support given to the LTTE by the applicant’s family.

7. The applicant alleged that during a ceasefire period commencing in 2002, the applicant and youths were forced to carry weapons and ammunition to different locations in the jungle and into villages to hide them in their homes, with the knowledge of the local villagers. The applicant alleges that when the Karuna split from the LTTE in 2004 and joined the Sri Lankan Army to fight the LTTE, the applicant had to take food to the Karuna paramilitaries and stand guard in the village at night to report if any LTTE came into the village. The applicant’s summarised claims referred to by the Authority also include the assertion the father had to supply food to the Karuna paramilitaries but also continued to secretly supply food to the LTTE hidden in the jungle.

8. The Authority referred to the proposition that an unspecified date, apparently after the split with the Karuna, the LTTE hid a cache of weapons and ammunitions underneath the applicant’s family farmhouse. The applicant alleges that his father told the applicant and his mother about this but did not specify the exact location. The summary of claims referred to the STF coming for the father in April 2008, but the father evaded arrest and escaped and fled to Qatar. The Authority summarised the father returning from Qatar after about three months and approaching a particular person, being an ex‑LTTE and paramilitary leader, and at that time the Chief Minister of the Eastern Province, about his concerns with the STF still searching for him. The Authority referred to the claim that on 25 September 2008, the father was taken from the home by the STF and Karuna people and has disappeared.

9. The Authority referred to four occasions between 2008 and 2012, on the information given to the STF by local former LTTE cadres, that the applicant was taken and detained by the STF, tortured and interrogated about his involvement with the LTTE and weapons transport, and was asked to identify the local youths who were LTTE. The applicant alleges on each occasion bar the last, he refused to cooperate but was released with threats, including not to leave and that they were gathering evidence to prosecute him as a cadre for transporting weapons. In the last incident, the applicant agreed to their demands to undergo firearms training and to work with them identifying LTTE cadres in order to be released.

10. Upon release from the fourth detention in June 2012, the applicant’s mother had contacted an agent and made arrangements for the applicant to get out of the country. The applicant alleges a few months after he left Sri Lanka, the STF visited the applicant’s home looking for him and his mother told them the Criminal Investigation Department (“CID”) had taken him.

11. The applicant alleged that while being in Australia he discovered from his mother that the farmhouse had burned down and the cache of weapons had been discovered and confiscated by the CID, and that the STF came to the applicant’s mother to question her and beat her, and that she was interrogated about her and the applicant’s knowledge of the weapons, and that the applicant was accused of failing to disclose them and of planning to use them in the future against the SLA. Threats allegedly were made in relation to the applicant if he returned and the applicant’s mother was released.

12. The Authority turned to the applicant’s claims and evidence, in respect of which the applicant carried the burden under s 5AAA of the Act. The Authority accepted some of the applicant’s claims, including that his father was a farmer and that their farm was large enough to sustain a sizeable cultivation and rotation of vegetables and rice, and that their village was under LTTE control. The Authority accepted a farm of such size would offer valuable support to the LTTE militants and farmers in areas under the control of the LTTE who were not already willing and voluntary supporters of the LTTE would have little choice but accede to demands to supply produce to them if demanded.

13. It was in those circumstances that the Authority accepted that the father primarily cultivated a large proportion of his rice and his vegetables for provision to the LTTE for several years, including during the war years prior to the ceasefire in 2002, and until the family were displaced in 2006. The Authority referred to the applicant stating that his father had been forced to support the LTTE and that he had not been a voluntary recruit. It was in those circumstances the Authority found the applicant’s father’s support of the LTTE was compelled. It was in those circumstances that the Authority did not accept that the father continued to secretly supply LTTE food, at risk to his family after the Karuna group and the Sri Lankan Army took control of their area.

14. The Authority was willing to accept that there may have been times when the applicant and other village youths were required to carry LTTE weapons to various jungle camps or locations during the ceasefire in lieu of forced LTTE military training. The Authority referred to it being remotely plausible that a particular commander may have issued orders to a village about such matters when in the area, but did not accept that the commander personally gave such an order directly to the applicant as claimed in the Safe Haven Enterprise visa application. The Authority referred to the interview in which the applicant had denied that the Karuna had done so. The Authority did not accept that the applicant received personal orders from the commander to carry weapons. The Authority did not accept that the applicant hid weapons in the houses of villagers or his own house. The Authority referred to the applicant stating his father would order him to hide weapons in his house if the Sri Lankan Army were roaming in the area. The Authority did not find it plausible that if the Sri Lankan Army were searching nearby that children were entrusted to take LTTE weapons and hide them in local homes, endangering the occupants.

15. The Authority again referred to the applicant’s evidence that his father was compelled to provide food, apart from one incident of weapons cache hiding, which the Authority discussed, the Authority did not accept that the applicant’s father was also involved in transporting and hiding weapons around the area. The Authority referred to the Safe Haven Enterprise visa interview when the applicant was asked about whether local villagers knew that the applicant was carrying arms and hiding them for the LTTE and the applicant denied that that had happened. In the Safe Haven Enterprise visa application statement the applicant agreed and was ready to admit it happened and that everybody had done that in the beginning before the Karuna split. It was in those circumstances the Authority did not accept the applicant or his father were involved in transporting weapons openly into villages and people’s homes and hiding them. The Authority found there was no claim and no evidence that either the father or the applicant was involved in fighting for the LTTE, and the Authority found they were not and that they did not do so.

16. The Authority referred to having doubts about the applicant’s claim that his father personally knew the commander. The Authority noted the applicant had not explained how his father knew the commander and referred to the applicant saying that it was the LTTE who supplied the grains and seeds for his family, and that his family boiled up the rice for the LTTE and supplied them with the food. The Authority was willing to accept that there may have been occasions when a particular person attended the LTTE militants in the area and in doing so came to the applicant’s home for food supply with other cadres and may have made general pronouncements. The Authority did not accept that there was any particular relationship between the father and commander. The Authority did not accept that the commander specifically gave orders to the applicant or his father about carrying weapons and doing training.

17. The Authority referred to the applicant’s claim that the LTTE and his father hid a cache of weapons and ammunition beneath the farmhouse and that the STF knew about this and accused the applicant of complicity and future separatist intentions by it. The Authority identified having serious misgivings about the credibility of this claim and evidence, which the Authority found was often contradictory and inconsistent.

18. The Authority referred to when the applicant was first asked in the interview if local villagers knew he was carrying arms or hiding arms for the LTTE and he responded, “they know we are helping, but we are not hiding anything.” It was only when the applicant was reminded of his application statement that he asserted the contrary.

19. The Authority referred to what was asserted in the Safe Haven Enterprise visa application and interview that the LTTE had buried a cache of weapons without knowledge of any Karuna paramilitaries and that it was in about 2004, after Karuna defected from LTTE, and that no-one else knew about it. The Authority referred to the applicant stating in his application that harassment levelled at his father thereafter by Karuna paramilitary was about food supply to the LTTE. The Authority noted that under questioning in the interview, the applicant stated the reason for his father’s abduction in 2008 was because of the weapons, about hiding the weapons, and the food. The Authority noted the applicant claimed his father was abducted by the STF and Karuna group in September 2008, and that contrary to their fears that he might confess to the cache under torture, the STF never came in search of the family.

20. The Authority noted that the applicant’s evidence about his own later detentions and interrogations were only about his own carrying around of weapons and the family’s LTTE food supply and what militants he knew, and not anything about a hidden cache of his father’s, until the June 2012 interrogation. The Authority referred to the fact in the interview questioning about why the STF never bothered to search the farmhouse and storeroom, the applicant said the STF had in fact conducted searches of the farm but were unsuccessful because they only searched the surface and did not know it was buried underneath. The Authority referred to the applicant’s claim concerning the accidental discovery of the cache by the farm labourers in 2016 and the STF telling his mother they had known about the arms cache from his father. The Authority considered it significant that the claim of previous searches of the farm for weapons had never been previously been raised by the applicant. The Authority found this to be indicative of a story being made up. The Authority placed weight upon the fact that at the applicant’s earliest entry interview, the applicant maintained that his fear of being at risk in Sri Lanka as an imputed LTTE supporter arose from suspicions of his family giving food to the LTTE, and that he made no mention at all of a weapons cache.

21. The Authority did not consider it plausible that the STF, having discovered from the applicant’s father following his abduction in 2008 that he was involved in a hidden LTTE armaments cache, would not have been able to have brought the father to assist the search, or have been able to deduce that a plausible hiding place was locked-up-for-years farmhouse/storeroom of a previous prolific farmer who now could no longer access the farm storeroom because there were some snakes inside. The Authority found the applicant’s explanation at the interview that the STF only searched the surface of the farm and did not think to dig underneath, was not credible.

22. The Authority referred to the applicant’s assertion of the accidental discovery of the weapons and his mother telling the STF that she had been told by the father that there were some buried weapons but she did not know where they were. The Authority considered that if the police had indeed confiscated a large LTTE cache hidden on the farm since the war, which the mother said she had known about generally, that the mother would have had far more serious repercussions than claimed.

23. The Authority did not consider it plausible that the LTTE would bury weapons for long-term future use on the farm of a compelled food supplier where it would be vulnerable to discovery by others due to farming or informants. The Authority did not consider it to be plausible that prior to withdrawing from Batticaloa the LTTE, who had lost many troops and arms to the Karuna defection in 2004, if they buried a large cache of weapons on the farm, they would leave behind armaments.

24. The Authority did not consider it plausible that after their withdrawal, the applicant’s father, who had been compelled to support the LTTE, would simply allow their weapons to remain on his farm, exposing his family to the danger from the Sri Lankan Army and Karuna paramilitaries, who were then in control of the Eastern Province from 2007 and had not destroyed or gotten rid of them. The Authority did not consider it plausible that the father, whose only job on the evidence was as a farmer, would lock up and leave unused for years the farm’s grain storeroom and tool shed and stop farming their vegetables because of it. The Authority did not consider it plausible that the mother, after her husband had disappeared, knowing that there were arms inside the farmhouse storeroom, would have continued to expose her family to that danger of discovery and would not have found them to destroy or get rid of them.

25. The Authority did not accept there was a hidden cache of weapons and ammunitions under the farmhouse/storeroom. The Authority did not accept such a cache has being seized by the CID or that the STF are now searching for the applicant because of it. The Authority did not accept the STF tortured and interrogated the mother about the weapons or the applicant’s whereabouts.

26. The Authority did not accept the father went to Qatar primarily to flee the STF or other Sri Lankan authorities. The Authority was willing to accept that at some point after his return from Qatar in 2008, the applicant’s father was abducted by unknown persons. The Authority accepted as plausible that the applicant’s father may have been taken on the basis of his support for the LTTE, which many locals, including former LTTE now Karuna paramilitaries knew of, but not due to any knowledge or suspicion of his hiding of weapons. The Authority did not accept the applicant’s claim in his Safe Haven Enterprise visa interview that the father was taken because of hidden weapons.

27. It was in these circumstances that the Authority did not accept over 18 months after the last 2010 detention that the applicant was suddenly pulled in again to be violently tortured and asked the same questions, in June 2012, by identifying other youths or to be prosecuted for previous food support and carrying arms. The Authority did not accept that on this occasion the applicant was asked if there were arms dumped in his house. The Authority did not accept that the STF simply released him when he agreed to do firearms training. The Authority did not find it plausible that if, as the applicant claims, the STF had such pressing interest in him, suspecting he was hiding an arms cache or needing him to identify escaped LTTE cadres and undergo firearms training with them in lieu of being prosecuted under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Sri Lanka) for former LTTE activities, that they would let at least six months slide by without bothering to do anything about it. The Authority did not accept the applicant was detained as claimed in June 2012. The Authority did not accept that the Sri Lankan authorities had a serious adverse interest in the applicant such that he was at risk of prosecution under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Sri Lanka). The Authority in that regard doubted that the applicant would have been issued with a passport if that was the case in 2012.

1. The Authority did not accept the STF came looking for the applicant at his mother’s house some months after he left the country. The Authority did not accept the applicant went into hiding in Colombo for three months because of the authorities’ interest in him. The Authority noted that this claim was not raised in his entry interview or the Safe Haven Enterprise visa application. The Authority did not accept the applicant fled Sri Lanka in fear of his life because of any weapons hidden at his family home.

2. The Authority accepted the applicant departed Sri Lanka illegally in 2012. The Authority did not accept the applicant was regarded as a person of particular interest by the Sri Lankan authorities or paramilitary groups when he departed Sri Lanka. The Authority found that the applicant’s fear of harm by reason of coming from an LTTE area and because of his father’s previous support for the LTTE was not well founded. The Authority took into account country information. The Authority found the applicant did not have and was not perceived to have any significant involvement in the LTTE or high profile links to them, nor any separatist activities. The Authority found the applicant had been questioned by authorities on several occasions about his own and his father’s involvement and has been released each time with no conditions to report anywhere nor sent for any rehabilitation. It was in those circumstances the Authority was not satisfied that either the applicant’s or the father’s activities of compelled assistance when living under LTTE control many years ago, which the authorities knew of, would now attract the adverse attention of the authorities.

3. It was in those circumstances the Authority was not satisfied the applicant would be viewed with any adverse interest on return to Sri Lanka either as a Tamil male from Batticaloa or because of his or his father’s actual or perceived LTTE activities in the past. The Authority was not satisfied the applicant would be perceived to have been or to now be a threat to national security. The Authority was not satisfied the applicant faced a real chance of harm on this basis on return to Sri Lanka.

4. The Authority found the applicant may be detained and questioned at the airport for up to 24 hours, be fined for breaching the Immigrants and Emigrants Act 1949 (Sri Lanka) and may face a short period of time held in prison awaiting the next available magistrate, if not taken to Court straightaway. The Authority did not consider that a brief period detention would constitute serious harm for the applicant. The Authority found any likely questioning of the applicant by the authorities at the airport on arrival, any surety imposed, or the imposition of a fine under the Immigrants and Emigrants Act 1949 (Sri Lanka) would not amount to serious harm.

5. The Authority found the Immigrants and Emigrants Act 1949 (Sri Lanka) is not a law that is discriminatory on its terms and is not selectively enforced or applied in a discriminatory manner. The Authority found the investigation, prosecution and punishment of the applicant under the Immigrants and Emigrants Act 1949 (Sri Lanka) would be the result of a law of general application and does not amount to persecution referred to in s 5J(1) of the Act.

6. The Authority was not satisfied the applicant faced a real chance of harm as a returned failed asylum seeker. The Authority found the applicant does not meet the definition of refugee in s 5H(1) of the Act and the applicant fails to meet the criterion under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.

7. The Authority found there were not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being returned from Australia to Sri Lanka, there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm. The Authority found the applicant does not meet the criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act and affirmed the decision under review.

Application to extend time

1. The proceedings in this Court were commenced on 21 May 2018, 116 days outside the required time under s 477 of the Act. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Turner on behalf of the applicant addressed the grounds in support of the extension of the time application and took the Court to the email address that the applicant had provided at page 50 of the Court Book, and to the communications that appeared at page 170 and 171 of the Court Book. Mr Turner relied upon the applicant’s evidence that he had not received the email notifying him of the Authority’s decision that was sent to a different email address to that that had been provided at page 50, and that which was in the submission document provided at page 171 of the Court Book.

2. Ms Laing of counsel, on behalf of the first respondent, submitted that the email address used by the Authority was the last-known email address. The difficulty with that submission is that the applicant had earlier provided the exact same email address that appeared in the attachment to the email as being the applicant’s email address. Ms Laing also sought to rely upon s 473HD(7) of the Act.

3. The applicant’s evidence does not support the applicant receiving the email sent to the covering email address that appears on page 170 of the Court Book. In the context of the combined email addresses, I do not accept that the email address to which the notification was sent was the last-known email address. I accept Mr Turner’s submission that in the present case, the reference to the email address that appears on page 171 was the same email address as the Authority had earlier been informed of as being the applicant’s address, and on its face was the last-known address to which the decision was not sent.

4. Mr Turner provided an amended application annexed to his submissions filed on 22 October 2018. Notwithstanding the submissions on behalf of the first respondent, the Court is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of the administration of justice to extend time under s 477 of the Act in the circumstances of the present case.

The grounds

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

   Ground 1

   The Authority rejected the Applicant's core claims on mere speculation and guesswork with no evidence.

   Particulars

   1. The Authority accepted that the size of the Applicant's farm would have been a valuable support to the LTTE militants, and farmers in areas under the control of the LTTE who were not already willing and voluntary supporters of the LTTE, would have had little choice but to accede to demands to supply produce to them if demanded.

   2. The Authority accepted that the father primarily cultivated a large proportion of his rice and vegetables for provision to the LTTE for several years, including during the war years prior to the ceasefire period of 2002, and until the family were displaced in 2006.

   3. The Authority accepts that there may have been times when the Applicant and other village youths were required to carry LTTE weapons to various jungle camps or locations during the cease-fire in lieu of forced LTTE military training.

   4. The Authority accepted that there may have been occasions when K attended the

   LTTE militants in their area and in doing so came to their home.

   5. However, the Authority refused to accept that the applicant received personal orders from K to carry weapons, that the Applicant hid weapons in the houses of villagers or his own house or that his father ordered him to hide them in their house if the SLA was roaming around the area.

   6. The Authority refused to accept that the LTTE and the Applicant's father hid a cache of weapons and ammunition beneath the farmhouse/storeroom and that the STF knew about this and accused the applicant of complicity and future separatist intention by it.

   7. The Authority stated it had serious misgivings about the credibility of this claim and evidence, which was often contradictory and inconsistent, but no evidence was given to support these findings.

   Ground 2

   The Authority failed to take into account a relevant consideration when making its decision.

   Particulars

   1. The Authority accepted that the Applicant's father was abducted by unknown persons when he returned from Qatar in 2008.

   2. The Authority accepted that it is plausible that the Applicant's father may have been taken on the basis of this support of the L TIE, which many locals, including former LTTE, now K paramilitaries knew of.

   3. However, the Authority did not accept or take into consideration that the Applicant fled Sri Lanka in fear of his life.

   Ground 3

   The Authority failed to consider an integer of the Applicant's claims.

   Particulars

   The Applicant has explained in detail where the weapons were hidden, why the STF had not found the weapons cache and the ramifications on his family for hiding the weapons from the STF. The Authority dismissed these claims by relying on the fact that the Applicant did not raise these claims in the entry interview.

Ground 1

1. In relation to ground 1, Mr Turner submitted that the Authority’s findings, particularly at paragraphs 15 to 18, were matters of speculation or guesswork and were not supported by the evidence. Mr Turner took the Court to the applicant’s entry interview and, in particular, the applicant’s reference to the STF coming to his home and taking his father. Mr Turner submitted that the Authority’s reasons did not identify any proper basis for the adverse findings not accepting that the father continued to secretly supply food and in relation to not accepting the hiding of weapons at the applicant’s house.

2. The adverse findings by the Authority were open for reasons given by the Authority as summarised above. The adverse findings cannot be said to lack an evident and intelligible justification. In that regard, the Authority in its reasons, as summarised above, identified contradictions and inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence. Those contradictions and inconsistencies cannot be said to be trivial or insignificant. The applicant’s own response referring to “They know we are helping, but we are not hiding anything” was of itself an evident and intelligible justification in support of the adverse findings, as was the adverse finding made accepting the applicant’s evidence that his father had not been a voluntary recruit and finding that his father’s support of the LTTE was compelled. Those were findings that were logical, rational and open to the Authority. No jurisdictional error as alleged in ground 1 is made out.

Ground 2

1. In relation to ground 2, Mr Turner referred to the Authority having accepted that the applicant’s father may have been taken on the basis of the LTTE support. Mr Turner’s submission, in substance, was to the effect that in light of that acceptance the Authority should have accepted that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution. That submission is, in substance, an invitation to this Court to engage in impermissible merits review. The Authority in its reference to accepting the plausibility of the applicant’s father having been taken because LTTE support expressly made an adverse finding that it was not due to knowledge or suspicion of hiding weapons.

2. There is no substance in the assertion that the Authority failed to take into account a relevant consideration. Ground 2, in substance, invites this Court to engage in impermissible merits review. The Authority’s reasons reflect a real and genuine engagement with the applicant’s claims and evidence. No jurisdictional error as alleged in ground 2 is made out.

Ground 3

1. In relation to ground 3, Mr Turner endeavoured to characterise the issue involving the hiding of weapons as an integer of the applicant’s claim was not addressed. There is no integer of the applicant’s claim that was not addressed by the Authority and the Authority made dispositive findings in respect of the applicant’s claims as summarised in paragraphs 15-26 above. Ground 3 is again, in substance, an invitation for this Court to engage in impermissible merits review.

2. It is apparent that the Authority made adverse credibility findings that were open to the Authority in respect of the applicant’s claims concerning hidden weapons. Those adverse findings were open and logical. No jurisdictional error as alleged in ground 3 is made out.

Conclusion

1. Accordingly, the amended application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding forty-six (46) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Date: 7 December 2018