CVF15 v Minister for Immigration

[2017] FCCA 691

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CVF15 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2017] FCCA 691

Catchwords:

MIGRATION – Application for review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) affirming decision of delegate of first respondent not to grant Protection visa – whether applicant gave answers on which Tribunal relied based on a misunderstanding or confusion of what was asked – whether Tribunal was obliged to put to the applicant prior inconsistent statement applicant made before the delegate before Tribunal could rely on inconsistency – whether Tribunal was obliged to ask applicant for further explanation of a matter before the Tribunal could rely on such matter as a reason for not accepting the applicant’s credibility – no jurisdictional error.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36(2)(a), 36(2)(aa), 424A(1), 424A(3)(a),

424A(3)(b), 425(1)

Cases cited:

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZTJF [2015] FCA 1052

Singh v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2016] FCCA 3343
SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152
SZHZD v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2008] FMCA 4
SZJUB v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 1486

Applicant: CVF15

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 3531 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Manousaridis

Hearing date: 31 March 2017

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 7 April 2017

REPRESENTATION

Applicant in person assisted by an interpreter.

Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr T Reilly

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3531 of 2015

CVF15

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The applicant, a citizen of Egypt, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (Minister) not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa (protection visa).

Claims for Protection

1. In his application for a protection visa, which he made on 25 February 2014, the applicant claimed he is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and fears returning to Egypt because of the ongoing mistreatment and persecution of the Muslim Brotherhood members. The applicant claimed he has not experienced any harm but has been threatened and fears experiencing harm in the future because of his support and membership of the Muslim Brotherhood. The applicant further claimed the military and supporters of the military will harm him if he returns to Egypt and in response to the question “do you think the authorities of that country can and will protect you if you go back?” the applicant claimed it is the authorities who are responsible for the persecution of the Muslim Brotherhood.

2. In a statutory declaration dated 30 June 2014 the applicant claimed he fears returning to Egypt because of his membership of the Muslim Brotherhood; his political activities; his remaining a military reservist; and his being denied effective protection. The applicant claimed he joined the Muslim Brotherhood during the parliamentary elections in 2005, has continued to be a member ever since, and is a member of the Al Mahalla branch. The applicant claimed he attended meetings, distributed party materials, encouraged the recruitment of new members, and undertook a wide range of social activities. The applicant further claimed that, after the ousting of President Morsi in July 2013, he participated in about five political rallies, including protests in Cairo, Midan Al Shan, and Al Mahalla. During the rallies protestors were violently attacked by security forces resulting in deaths (including four of the applicant’s close friends) and serious injury to thousands of people. The applicant claimed he sustained superficial shoulder injuries at one of the protests which required treatment at the local hospital, but he managed to escape arrest or serious injury at all protests he participated in. The applicant claimed he will be detained under new anti-terrorism and protest laws if he is returned to Egypt.

3. The applicant further claimed he remains a military reservist and is liable to be called for military duty until November 2018. The applicant claims he is not willing to undertake military service on the basis of his political views and support for the Muslim Brotherhood. The applicant fears that if he is returned to Egypt and is “called up” for military service he will be detained and subjected to disproportionate significant or serious mistreatment because of his political objections to military service. Further, the applicant claimed that, as an active member of the Muslim Brotherhood, he may be subjected to serious or significant harm at the hands of individuals who support the military or current governing administration and that he would be denied effective protection when faced with real threats to his safety by private individuals or groups.

4. The applicant made additional claims during his interview with the delegate on 10 July 2014. He claimed he was in fear for his life since 30 June 2013, he was attacked in July 2013 and verbally abused by the general public, the police went to his home in August 2013 looking for him, and the military had sent a letter requesting him to report for service.

5. After his interview with the delegate, the applicant provided the delegate with an undated statement[1] in which he made additional claims, together with a document titled “conscription summons” which is said to be dated “from 10/04/2014 until 01/05/2014”.[2] The applicant claimed he was humiliated, beaten, and insulted by some of President el-Sisi’s supporters after the military coup in July 2013; the police chased the applicant in August 2013 because the applicant is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, as a result of which the applicant had to flee his house and country; after the applicant arrived in Australia as part of a musical troupe, he was issued with a warrant to attend the army; the applicant was present at Rabia when four of his friends and thousands of others were killed, and where he was beaten and had to go to hospital; if the applicant returns to Egypt, he will have to obey orders and kill innocent members of the Muslim Brotherhood or not obey orders and be killed himself by the army; and that his family informed him that the army had sent him a warrant to attend.

   [1] CB58

   [2] CB61

Before the Tribunal

1. Before the Tribunal, the applicant was asked about his membership of the Muslim Brotherhood. The applicant said he became a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2005; there were ten members of the Muslim Brotherhood with a secretary, general secretary and director; the Muslim Brotherhood was formed in the 1960s, that it was formed by Sheik Tah Tawi; the Muslim Brotherhood was formed through members and that he was the member in charge of his village; the applicant spread ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood, distributed party materials, attended meetings, distributed Muslim Brotherhood’s programmes, and distributed funds to the poor and charities.[3] The applicant also said he attended weekly or fortnightly meetings at a particular office of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP). The Tribunal noted the applicant said that when he “started doing this work in 2005 it was called the FJP”, that the FJP, being the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, was established in 1967, although the applicant was not sure of the year.[4] The applicant also said he became a member of the FJP in 2005, his membership was valid for three years and he renewed his membership every three years.[5]

   [3] CB129, [19]

   [4] CB130, [22]

   [5] CB130, [22]

Tribunal’s decision

1. The Tribunal made the following findings in relation to the applicant’s claims based on his being a member of the Muslim Brotherhood:[6]

   [T]he applicant is not a witness of truth and that he fabricated his material claims. The Tribunal is of the view that he kept manufacturing new claims throughout the process of his visa application in an attempt to enhance his prospects of obtaining a Protection visa. The Tribunal is of the view that he was prepared to say anything to obtain a Protection visa without any regard for the truth. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a credible witness.

   [6] CB132, [35]

2. The Tribunal relied on a number of matters, including the following:

   a)First, the applicant’s evidence in relation to when the Muslim Brotherhood was formed, who formed the Muslim Brotherhood, the hierarchy of membership in the Muslim Brotherhood, and the structure of the Muslim Brotherhood, were not consistent with information on “ the official English website for the Muslim Brotherhood.[7] The Tribunal found country information stating the FJP, the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, was formed in 2011, was not consistent with the applicant’s claims that it was called the FJP from the time he started his work for the Muslim Brotherhood in 2005. The Tribunal noted that if the applicant has been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood since 2005 and was in charge of the branch in his village, it would be expected the applicant would know this information.[8]

   b)Second, given country information which the Tribunal accepted showed the FJP was formed in 2011, and assuming, as the applicant claimed, that his membership of the FJP was valid for three years, the earliest date on which the applicant’s membership of the FJP could have expired was 2014.[9] That, however, was inconsistent with the purported FJP membership card on which the applicant relied, which showed the applicant’s membership was due to expire on 31 December 2013.[10]

   c)Third, the applicant made claims after he applied for a Protection visa that were not included in his application. These claims were that the applicant feared for his life since 30 June 2013, the applicant was attacked in July 2013 and was verbally abused by the general public, and the police went to the applicant’s home in August 2013 looking for him.[11] The Tribunal was of the view that these matters are not matters the applicant would have overlooked or forgotten at the time he applied for a Protection visa.[12]

   d)Fourth, at his interview with the delegate, the applicant said he was an active member of the Muslim Brotherhood but not a leader, yet before the Tribunal the applicant said he was the Muslim Brotherhood member in charge in his village.[13]

   e)Fifth, before the delegate, the applicant for the first time, claimed he was being investigated by the authorities and that the police went to his house in August 2013. Before the Tribunal, however, the applicant claimed the police went to his house once on 20 July 2013 and once in August 2013.[14]

   f)Sixth, if, as the applicant claimed, the police were looking for the applicant in July and August 2013, it is implausible the police would not have apprehended him before he left Egypt in February 2014.[15]

   g)Seventh, the delegate asked the applicant about significant events in Egypt in 2013 in relation to the Muslim Brotherhood, and in particular the significant event in December 2013. The applicant was unable to respond. In particular, he did not say the Muslim Brotherhood had been declared a terrorist organisation. Further, the applicant gave what the Tribunal considered to be a “long, rambling and non-responsive answer” to the question about when the Muslim Brotherhood had been declared a terrorist organisation and, when asked again, stated this occurred after he arrived in Australia and he read the news.[16] The Tribunal was of the view that, had the applicant, as he claimed, been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood he would have been aware it was declared a terrorist organisation in December 2013 when the applicant was still in Egypt, particularly as the Egyptian authorities had cracked down on the leadership and members of the Muslim Brotherhood.[17]

   [7] CB129, [21]

   [8] CB129, [21]

   [9] The Tribunal only records the year, but not the date on which the FJP was formed. It is to be inferred that the Tribunal was satisfied the FJP was formed after, but not on, 1 January 2011.

   [10] CB130, [23]

   [11] CB130, [24]

   [12] CB130, [25]

   [13] CB130, [26]

   [14] CB130, [26]

   [15] CB130, [27]

   [16] CB131, [28]

   [17] CB131, [29]

3. The Tribunal, therefore, did not accept the applicant was or is a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood or of the FJP, or that the purported FJP membership card was authentic, or that the applicant participated in any political rallies in Egypt, or that the applicant has any particular political views or opinions, or that the applicant is of any adverse interest to the Egyptian authorities, or to the supporters of President el-Sisi or anyone else.[18]

   [18] CB132, [36]

4. The Tribunal accepted the applicant undertook compulsory military service in Egypt which he competed in 2009, and that he is in the reserves until 1 December 2018. The Tribunal, however, otherwise found the applicant was not a witness of truth in relation to his claims based on his being a reservist, that the applicant “fabricated his material claims”, and that the applicant “is not a credible witness”.[19] The Tribunal relied on matters that included the following:

   a)First, the document on which the applicant relied for claiming he was summoned by the military to report for military service stated “Date of Summons: from 10/04/2014 until 01/05/2014”.[20] The Tribunal found it implausible that a document, particularly one issued by the government of Egypt, would not be issued on a specific date but rather on a range of dates.[21]

   b)Second, at the hearing, in response to the Tribunal’s having raised its concerns about the authenticity of the summons, the applicant said the dates 10 April 2014 to 1 May 2014 represented the period he was required to spend in the army.[22] After the hearing the applicant provided to the Tribunal a document titled “Recalling Order” which contained the same information as the summons except that, instead of stating “Date of Summons”, the document stated “Recall Date”.[23] That document, however, was undated, and the Tribunal found it implausible that an official document issued by the government of Egypt would be undated.[24] Further, if the dates specified in the document were the dates the applicant was required to serve in the army, the document would have been issued before 10 April 2014. The Tribunal found it implausible the applicant’s family did not inform the applicant of the document before the delegate interviewed the applicant on 10 July 2014.[25]

   c)Third, at the hearing before the Tribunal, the applicant made a new claim that he had already been summoned to serve in the army in 2010 and served for 21 days.[26] After the hearing, the applicant provided a document dated 25 March 2011 purportedly issued by the Administration of Military Police to the Office of Recruitment and Mobilization, requiring the applicant to present himself on 25 March 2011. The Tribunal found it implausible the document required the applicant to appear on the day on which it was issued.[27]

   [19] CB134, [48]

   [20] The document is at CB61

   [21] CB133, [41]

   [22] CB133, [43]

   [23] The document is at CB118

   [24] CB133, [44]

   [25] CB133, [44]

   [26] CB133, [45]

   [27] CB134, [46]

5. The Tribunal, therefore, did not accept the applicant was recalled from the reserves in 2010 or in 2011, or from 10 April to 1 May 2014, and all of the applicant’s claims that flowed from that.[28] Further, the Tribunal was not satisfied the summons, the letter purportedly from the Administration of Military Police to the Office of Recruitment and Mobilization dated 25 March 2011, and the undated recalling order are authentic documents.[29]

   [28] CB134, [49]

   [29] CB134, [49]

6. Given the Tribunal did not accept the truth of the applicant’s claims, the Tribunal was not satisfied the applicant satisfied the criteria for the granting of a Protection visa prescribed by s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act).

Grounds of application

1. The application filed with the Court contains four grounds of review. The first ground is:

   At point 19 of the RRT decision record, the RRT asks about structure of MB. I responded by explaining my role with the MB in my village. It was clear that I misunderstood the question because I spoke about my role and not about structure. The RRT did not repeat the question or notice that my response was not relevant to its question.

2. The applicant, who is not legally represented, made submissions at the hearing which repeated the substance of this ground.

3. This ground relates to the following paragraph of the Tribunal’s reasons:[30]

   The applicant gave evidence that he became a member of the MB in 2005 when he was 20 years old or 23 years old. . . . When asked to explain the structure of the MB, he stated that it was formed through members and he was the member in charge of his village.

   [30] CB129, [19]

4. Although the applicant, in response to the Tribunal’s questions, as recorded in the Tribunal’s reasons, set out his role in the Muslim Brotherhood, the applicant did so after he first referred to the Muslim Brotherhood having been formed through members. That is an answer that may reasonably be characterised as an attempt to describe the structure of the Muslim Brotherhood. I am not satisfied, therefore, that the applicant’s response to the Tribunal’s question was unresponsive and, therefore, may form a basis for inferring the applicant misunderstood the question.

5. Even if, however, the applicant’s answer could be characterised as unresponsive, that would not necessarily mean the applicant misunderstood the question. Another available explanation for the applicant’s not providing a responsive answer to the Tribunal’s question is that the applicant did not know the answer. And even if the applicant misunderstood the question, there is nothing to suggest the Tribunal ought to have been aware of the applicant’s having misunderstood the question.

6. Ground 1, therefore, fails.

7. The second ground is:

   There was a lot of confusion with the actual name Freedom and Justice Party (FJP). It was not clear to me when the RRT was referring to the actual FJP party or to the MB as a whole. As noted in point 21 of the RRT decision record, the FJP is the political arm of the MB. In my answers I was referring to the MB and FJP interchangeably. This is evidenced by the fact that I said I was part of the party in 2005 in point 20 and that the party had been formed in 1967. At point 21 of the decision record, the RRT states that the FJP, the political arm of the MB was formed in 2011. The RRT did not present this information to me. Had the RRT discussed this with me at the interview, I would have clarified that I was using the terms interchangeably given that the FJP is the MB.

8. As with the first ground, the applicant made submissions in relation to ground 2, but he went no further than repeating the substance of the ground.

9. There are a number of elements to this ground. The first is a factual assertion that, when giving his answers, the applicant used the expressions “Muslim Brotherhood” and the “Freedom and Justice Party” interchangeably. Given there is no transcript of the hearing before the Tribunal, the applicant’s assertion that he employed these expressions interchangeably is to be assessed by reference to the Tribunal’s reasons for decision.

10. According to its reasons for decision, the Tribunal asked the applicant a number of questions about the applicant’s membership of the Muslim Brotherhood.[31] The applicant said he became a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in 2005.[32] After recording the applicant’s answers to some questions, the Tribunal recorded the following:[33]

    The applicant stated that he attended weekly or fortnightly meetings at the Al Mahalla office of the MB and the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP). He stated that when he started doing this work in 2005 it was called the FJP.

    [31] CB129, [18]-[19]

    [32] CB129, [19]

    [33] CB129, [20]

1. I cannot be satisfied on the basis of this passage that the applicant used the expressions “Muslim Brotherhood” and the “Freedom and Justice Party” interchangeably. The applicant is recorded as having referred to “the Al Mahalla office of the MB and the Freedom and Justice Party” (emphasis added). If the applicant in truth used “Muslim Brotherhood” and the “Freedom and Justice Party” interchangeably, he would not have used both expressions to describe the Al Mahalla office; he would have used “Muslim Brotherhood”, being the expression he consistently used in his application for a protection visa,[34] in his statutory declaration,[35] and in his undated statement.[36]

   [34] CB19-22

   [35] CB55, [20]-[22]

   [36] CB58

2. Perhaps the applicant made the statements the Tribunal recorded in the passage I have set out above in response to questions the Tribunal itself asked about the FJP which were prompted by the applicant’s seeking to support his claim he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood by reference to a purported membership card of the FJP. Perhaps the applicant’s statements are an attempt by him to explain how his producing a document that purported to show he was a member of the FJP supported his claim he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. The evidence does not, however, permit me to make any positive findings about this because there is no transcript of the hearing before the Tribunal. All I am confident in concluding is that I cannot be satisfied the applicant used the expressions “Muslim Brotherhood” and the “Freedom and Justice Party” interchangeably.

3. The second element of ground 2 is the factual assertion that it was not clear to the applicant when “the RRT was referring to the actual FJP party or to the MB as a whole”. Again, given there is no transcript of the hearing before the Tribunal, this assertion is to be assessed by reference to the Tribunal’s reasons for decision; and what is recorded in the Tribunal’s reasons does not satisfy me the Tribunal used the expressions “Muslim Brotherhood” and the “Freedom and Justice Party” interchangeably in such a way as could reasonably have led the applicant to be unclear about which of the Muslim Brotherhood or the JFP the Tribunal intended to refer when it used the expressions “Muslim Brotherhood” and “Freedom and Justice Party”.

4. There is, however, another matter to note. The applicant’s assertion that it was not clear to him when “the RRT was referring to the actual FJP party or to the MB as a whole” implies the applicant was aware, at the time he was being questioned by the Tribunal, of the distinction between the Muslim Brotherhood and the FJP, and it was unclear to the applicant at the time he appeared before the Tribunal to which of the Muslim Brotherhood or the FJP the Tribunal intended to refer when it used the expressions “Muslim Brotherhood” and the “Freedom and Justice Party”. If, as he asserts, the applicant was unclear about which of the Muslim Brotherhood or the FJP the Tribunal intended to refer by using the expressions “Muslim Brotherhood” and the “Freedom and Justice Party”, it is reasonable to expect the applicant would have asked the Tribunal to clarify whether the Tribunal was asking about the Muslim Brotherhood or the FJP. There is nothing in the evidence before me to suggest the applicant asked the Tribunal for such clarification. That is an additional reason for my not being satisfied the applicant was unclear about whether the Tribunal was referring to the Muslim Brotherhood or to the FJP whenever it used the expressions “Muslim Brotherhood” and “Freedom and Justice Party”.

5. A third element in ground 2 is the claim the Tribunal was obliged to put to the applicant the country information on which the Tribunal relied for finding that the FJP was established in 2011. As the Minister submits, the information on which the Tribunal relied was not specifically about the applicant or another person; it was just about a class of persons of which the applicant or other person is a member.[37] The Tribunal, therefore, was not required by s.424A(1) of the Act to give particulars of the information to the applicant.

   [37] The Act, s.424A(3)(a)

6. The Minister also submits the Tribunal was not obliged under s.425(1) of the Act to give notice to the applicant that it might find the applicant’s claim that he joined the FJP in 2005 to be incorrect. The Minister relied on the following passage from the judgment of Yates J in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZTJF:[38]

   As the Minister correctly submitted, s 425 is not an overarching or “catch-all” procedural fairness provision. It cannot be used . . . to require the Tribunal to disclose to a review applicant the content or substance of its evaluation of, or conclusions on, the evidence of another person given in another review.

   [38] [2015] FCA 1052 at [54]

7. Subsection 425(1) of the Act provides that the Tribunal “must invite the applicant to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review”.[39] It has been held this requires that the issues “arising in relation to the decision under review” must be identified; and whether or not these issues are identified in any given case depends in part on the grounds on which the Minister or his or her delegate disposed of the decision under review. In particular, unless the Tribunal “tells the applicant something different, the applicant would be entitled to assume that the reasons given by the delegate for refusing to grant the application will identify the issues that arise in relation to that decision”. [40]

   [39] I repeat in this and the next paragraph what I said in Singh v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2016] FCCA 3343 at [47] and [48]

   [40] SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152 at [36]

8. The question of what matters are capable of being properly characterised as “issues arising in relation to the decision under review” was considered by Barnes FM (as her Honour then was) in SZHZD v Minister for Immigration & Anor.[41] Her Honour said that the “issues arising in relation to the decision under review” are “the “dispositive” or determinative issues in the sense of issues on which the decision to reject the applicant’s claim is based”.[42] And in SZJUB v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship, Bennett J said the Tribunal is obliged to inform an applicant of the issues, but not each fact that relates to them.[43]

   [41] [2008] FMCA 4

   [42] [2008] FMCA 4 at [39]

   [43] [2007] FCA 1486 at [25]

9. In my opinion, whether or not, when the applicant claimed he joined the Muslim Brotherhood in 2005, the FJP existed, was not a dispositive or determinative issue; it was a matter that was relevant to the credibility of the applicant’s claim that he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that he had been a member since 2005. It was not, therefore, an issue to which s.425(1) of the Act applied. The Tribunal, therefore, was not obliged to give the applicant notice that it might not accept the applicant’s claim he was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood for reasons that included the applicant’s having given evidence that, when he started working in 2005, the Muslim Brotherhood was called the FJP in circumstances where country information showed the FJP had not been formed until 2011.

10. Ground 2, therefore, also fails.

11. The third ground is:

    Noted at point 26 of the RRT decision record is that I claimed I was not a leader in the MB. At the RRT I claimed that I was in charge in my village. The RRT did not present to me what it saw was a discrepancy nor did it ask for further explanation. I was not a leader in official capacity with MB but self appointed organizer and in charge informally in local area.

12. By this ground, the applicant claims the Tribunal was required to put to the applicant what the Tribunal considered to be a discrepancy in the applicant’s evidence – in this case, a prior inconsistent statement the applicant made to the delegate on 10 July 2014, as recorded in the delegate’s decision record, that the applicant was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood but he was not a leader.

13. The Minister submits s.424A(1) of the Act did not oblige the Tribunal to put to the applicant inconsistencies the Tribunal perceived in the applicant’s evidence because “such inconsistencies are not “information” within s 424A(1)”.[44] I am not satisfied that a prior inconsistent statement is not “information” within the meaning of s.424A(1) of the Act. A prior inconsistent statement is evidentiary material that is capable of being used in a chain of reasoning that may lead the Tribunal not to accept an applicant’s evidence, and hence may form part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.

    [44] First Respondent’s Written Submissions, [8]

14. That the applicant’s prior inconsistent statement that he was a member but not a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood may have been “information” for the purpose of s.424A(1) of the Act does not mean, however, that s.424A(1) applied. The prior inconsistent statement was contained in the delegate’s decision record which the applicant provided to the Tribunal.[45] In other words, the prior inconsistent statement was information the applicant gave “for the purpose of the application for review” within the meaning of s.424A(3)(b) of the Act and, for that reason, was not information to which s.424A(1) applied. Further, for the reasons set out in the passage from SZJTF that I have set out above, s.425(1) of the Act did not otherwise oblige the Tribunal to bring to the applicant’s attention his prior inconsistent statement.

    [45] CB85

15. At the hearing before me, the applicant said he was a manager of an area but he had a manager above him. That, however, is not a matter the applicant claims he stated to the Tribunal and, therefore, is not a ground for concluding the Tribunal made any jurisdictional error.

16. Ground 3, therefore, also fails.

17. The fourth ground is:

    At point 42 of the RRT decision record, the RRT found it was implausible that I was in regular contact with my family but they did not inform me that I had been issues [sic] with a Summons. The RRT did not further discuss or ask why I had not been informed.

18. There was no obligation on the Tribunal to ask the applicant why his family did not inform the applicant that he had been issued with a summons. The Tribunal was not obliged to inform the applicant of its evaluation or proposed evaluation of the evidence the applicant gave. It was for the applicant to put forward material to the Tribunal to support his case.

19. Ground 4, therefore, is not made out.

Other matters

1. The applicant submitted he could not understand why the Tribunal did not accept as authentic the documents on which he relied.

2. The applicant’s claimed inability to understand the reasons the Tribunal did not accept documents the applicant submitted to be authentic does not support the contention it was not reasonably open to the Tribunal, for the reasons it gave, not to accept those documents to be authentic. It was reasonably open to the Tribunal, for the reasons it gave, not to accept the documents to be authentic.

Disposition

1. I propose to order that the application be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding forty-five (45) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Manousaridis

Date: 7 April 2017