DRZ16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

[2022] FedCFamC2G 69

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

DRZ16 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FedCFamC2G 69

File number:	MLG 2630 of 2016
Judgment of:	JUDGE LADHAMS
Date of judgment:	11 February 2022
Catchwords:	MIGRATION – Judicial review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal denied the applicant procedural fairness – whether the Tribunal applied the wrong legal test – whether alleged interpretation errors give rise to jurisdictional error – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.
Legislation:	Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36, 422B, 424AA, 424A, 425, 425A, 426A, 441A, 476, 477, Part 7 Division 4 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), reg.4.35D
Cases cited:	Bala v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 600 DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 784 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259; [1996] HCA 6 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA (2019) 264 CLR 421; [2019] HCA 3 Parker v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 247 FCR 500; [2016] FCAFC 185 SZNXA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 775
Division:	Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs:	64
Date of hearing:	25 October 2021
Place:	Perth
Applicant:	In person
Counsel for the First Respondent:	Mr S Cummings
Second Respondent	Submitting appearance, save as to costs
Solicitor for the Respondents	Sparke Helmore Lawyers

ORDERS

MLG 2630 of 2016

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)

BETWEEN:

DRZ16

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE LADHAMS
DATE OF ORDER:	11 FEBRUARY 2022

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application filed on 5 December 2016 is dismissed.

Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.

Note: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for judgment may be subject to review to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE LADHAMS:

INTRODUCTION

1. By application filed on 5 December 2016, the applicant seeks judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) on 16 November 2016. The Tribunal affirmed an earlier decision made by a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa (protection visa). The application is filed pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act).

2. For the reasons explained below, I find that there is no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal decision. It follows that the application is dismissed.

   BACKGROUND

3. The applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka who arrived in Australia in 2012. He applied for the protection visa on 15 July 2013. The applicant claimed to fear harm if he were to returne to Sri Lanka because of his political views as a supporter of the United National Party (UNP). The applicant claimed that he would be subjected to physical harm from opponents of the UNP, incited by his brother-in-law who is a member of the Sri Lankan Freedom Party. 

4. On 29 January 2014 the applicant attended an interview conducted by an officer of the Minister’s Department to discuss his claims for protection. A delegate of the Minister decided not to grant the applicant a protection visa on 19 September 2014.

5. On 26 September 2014 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision. He was represented by a registered migration agent throughout the review proceeding.

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal at a hearing on 26 September 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant told the Tribunal that he feared he would be killed by his brother-in-law and the members of his brother-in-law’s political party and was concerned he would be imprisoned for leaving Sri Lanka illegally.

7. On 16 November 2016 the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

   TRIBUNAL DECISION

   Credibility

8. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was a witness of truth and was not satisfied that the applicant told the Tribunal the truth in relation to critical aspects of his claims.

9. The Tribunal found that there were numerous and significant differences between the applicant’s oral evidence at the hearing and his written statement, a letter from the UNP, a letter from Foundation House and the information he provided in his entry interview.

10. The Tribunal also found that the applicant’s claim that he would be attacked for supporting another candidate two years after the election in 2010 was implausible.

11. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had been diagnosed with major depression,

    
    

    post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic back pain and also accepted that the applicant had reported problems with his memory and difficulty concentrating to his counsellor and doctor.  However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that these medical conditions adequately explained the differences between the applicant’s oral evidence and the information he had previously presented. Further, the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant’s memory and ability to concentrate and recall events was impaired to such a degree that would adequately explain the concerns the Tribunal raised with the applicant throughout the hearing about the inconsistencies in his evidence.

    Refugee criteria

12. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was an ardent supporter or member of the UNP.  The Tribunal accepted that the applicant may have voted for his brother-in-law in 2006 and a UNP candidate in 2010, but did not accept that the applicant was motivated by a political opinion and did not accept that the applicant was actively involved in politics. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had a profile or was imputed with the profile of a person who could persuade others to support a candidate and affect an election outcome, over and above his own vote. 

13. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had been promised a house in return for his support in the 2006 election. Nor did it accept that his brother-in-law or associates of the brother-in-law’s party or anyone else was angry with him or had an adverse interest in him when he chose to vote for a candidate of another party in the 2010 elections. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant fled to the Maldives due to a political problem in 2009 or that he moved away from his family home to avoid harm. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had been attacked and stabbed by people on a three wheeler motorcycle or attacked by a gang at his home and did not accept that he suffered damage to his leg that required a plate to be put in. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant’s family had been questioned about his whereabouts since his departure from Sri Lanka and did not accept that the applicant’s family had been harassed or assaulted or harmed, or that his wife had been raped, since the applicant left Sri Lanka. 

14. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant’s brother had died but did not accept that this death was connected to the applicant or any political activity.

15. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant would be politically active or imputed with a political profile or opinion in support of any party or candidate that would attract the adverse attention of anyone if he returned to Sri Lanka. The Tribunal did not accept that there was a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm or harm of any kind due to an actual or imputed political opinion if he returned to Sri Lanka now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

16. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant left Sri Lanka in breach of the Immigrants and Emigrants Act (Sri Lanka) and would be returned to Sri Lanka on temporary travel documents. Taking into account country information, the Tribunal accepted that the applicant would be arrested at the airport and brought before a magistrate and may be detained or held in a prison for a number of days. The Tribunal found that this would be the result of the

    
    

    non-discriminatory enforcement of the law of general application. The Tribunal did not accept that there was a real chance that the applicant would be mistreated while in custody at the airport or on remand. The Tribunal accepted that prison conditions in Sri Lanka are poor due to overcrowding and unsanitary conditions but the Tribunal did not accept that one or more of the five Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 reasons would be the essential and significant reason for the applicant experiencing those conditions.

17. The Tribunal did not accept that country information supported the conclusion that failed asylum seekers are imputed with the political opinion of being opposed to the Sri Lankan government and having criticised the Sri Lankan government while abroad. The Tribunal did not accept that there was a real chance the applicant would suffer persecution on return to Sri Lanka because he left Sri Lanka illegally or because he claimed asylum in Australia.

18. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and did not meet the criteria in s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

    Complementary protection criteria

19. The Tribunal, taking into account its findings on the applicant’s credibility and considering his claims individually and cumulatively, was not satisfied that the evidence before it indicated that the applicant, on return to Sri Lanka, would face a real risk of significant harm.

20. In reaching these findings, the Tribunal made similar findings of fact about the applicant’s claims as it made when considering the refugee criteria. The Tribunal found that there was not a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm on account of his actual or imputed political opinion. The Tribunal found that the treatment the applicant would face at the airport would not amount to significant harm within the meaning of s 36(2A) of the Migration Act. The Tribunal found that the treatment available in Sri Lanka for the applicant’s medical conditions may differ to that available in Australia, but on the evidence before it, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would be unable to obtain treatment for his medical conditions or that he would be stopped from obtaining treatment. The Tribunal was not satisfied on the evidence before it that the Sri Lankan authorities or anybody else had the intention to torture, or intentionally inflict pain or suffering, or intentionally cause extreme humiliation to people with a mental illness such as the applicant.

21. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the complementary protection criteria in s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.

    PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT

22. The application to this Court was filed on 5 December 2016, which is within the 35 day time frame prescribed by s 477(1) of the Migration Act.

23. The applicant raised the following two grounds of application:

    1.The Administrative Appeals Tribunal did not afford me procedural fairness

    2.The Administrative Appeals Tribunal applied the wrong legal test.

24. The matter came before me for hearing on 25 October 2021. The parties were notified of this hearing date by email sent on 18 August 2021. The email was sent to the applicant at the email address listed in his most recent notice of address for service. A further email was sent to the parties on 19 October 2021. This email provided the Microsoft Teams link for the hearing and attached information about hearings conducted by Microsoft Teams. The email was again sent to the applicant at the email address listed in his most recent notice of address for service. I am satisfied that the applicant was properly notified of the hearing.

25. Mr Cummings appeared for the Minister at the hearing on 25 October 2021. The applicant did not appear when the matter was called. I stood the matter down to enable my associate to attempt to contact the applicant by telephone. The applicant was able to be contacted by telephone and the hearing proceeded with the applicant appearing by telephone. The applicant explained that he did not check his email and therefore did not know of the hearing. However, he confirmed that he was content to proceed to appear at the hearing by telephone, although he did not have access to documents. I told the applicant at the start of the hearing that if at any stage he felt he was unable to understand what was happening or that it was unfair to him for the matter to proceed today that he should tell me. At the conclusion of the hearing, I also gave the applicant a further opportunity to file written submissions in case there was anything that he had not had the chance to tell me at the hearing on 25 October 2021.

    SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS

    Applicant’s submissions

26. The applicant did not file any submissions ahead of the hearing.

27. At the hearing, I gave the applicant an opportunity to explain his grounds and to tell the Court what he believed the Tribunal did wrong. The Federal Court in DQQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 784 at [9] confirmed that it is usually appropriate to give self-represented applicants in protection visa matters an opportunity to explain orally the matters that are said to give rise to their review grounds.

28. The applicant submitted that the Tribunal decision was wrong because otherwise he would have been given the visa. He said that the interpreter at his arrival interview was a Tamil interpreter and could not even write the applicant’s name properly. The applicant did not indicate that he had any difficulty understanding the interpreter at the Tribunal hearing.

29. In accordance with the order that I made at the hearing, the applicant filed a written submission following the hearing. In this submission, the applicant set out some of the background to his matter including the date of his application, the date of the delegate’s decision and a summary of his claims for protection. The applicant submitted that an application to amend his application was dismissed because there was insufficient merit in the proposed amended ground on which the applicant wished to rely. The applicant then reiterated that he still fears harm if he is returned to Sri Lanka and gave reasons as to why he continues to fear harm in Sri Lanka, including in relation to issues that were not before the Tribunal, such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Minister’s submissions

30. The Minister filed a written outline of submissions on 8 November 2018. The Minister submitted that the grounds in the applicant’s application were template grounds without sufficient particulars to make them meaningful and the grounds should be dismissed for this reason alone.

31. In relation to ground 1, the Minister submitted that the Tribunal had complied with its procedural fairness obligations in Division 4 of Part 7 of the Migration Act. The Minister submitted that the applicant was invited to attend a hearing before the Tribunal in accordance with ss 425 and 425A of the Migration Act and that the Tribunal then agreed to an adjournment request made by the applicant. The applicant was assisted by his migration agent and a Sinhalese interpreter at the hearing. The Tribunal allowed the applicant a number of breaks to stretch and reposition during the hearing to take into account his medical conditions. The applicant confirmed a number of times throughout the hearing that he was well enough to give evidence and complete the hearing. The Tribunal allowed the applicant to provide post-hearing submissions. The Minister also submitted that the applicant was on notice from the delegate’s decision and the Tribunal questioning at the hearing that the credibility of his claims would be a determinative issue on the review. The Minister submitted that there was no information that the Tribunal was required to put to the applicant under s 424A of the Migration Act.

32. In relation to ground 2, the Minister submitted that the Tribunal did not apply the wrong legal test. The Tribunal set out the relevant law under a specific heading, assessed the applicant’s claims and evidence with reference to that law, and made detailed findings against the applicant’s claims under the refugee criteria and the complementary protection criteria. The Tribunal also had regard to the guidelines in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) under Ministerial Direction 56 made under s 499 of the Migration Act to the extent that they were relevant.

33. In his oral submissions at the hearing, Mr Cummings provided an overview of the applicant’s claims for protection and the Tribunal’s reasons for decision. Mr Cummings then provided an overview of the Minister’s written submissions. He did so in clear and simple language which was appropriate in circumstances where the applicant was self-represented and appearing before the Court with the assistance of an interpreter. In response to the applicant’s oral submissions, Mr Cummings submitted that the documents in the court book show that the interpreter used at the applicant’s entry interview spoke Sinhalese, and that the interpreter at the Tribunal hearing also spoke Sinhalese. The applicant had requested a Sinhalese interpreter in his protection visa application and in his communications with the Tribunal.

34. In further written submissions filed in response to the applicant’s post hearing submissions, the Minister submitted that the applicant had not filed any amended application in this Court and the Court had not dismissed any application for judicial review filed by the applicant in respect of the Tribunal decision. The Minister further submitted that the matters raised in the applicant’s submission did not amount to jurisdictional error because:

    (a)events that occurred after the Tribunal decision are not relevant to the task of the Court in determining whether the Tribunal decision is valid;

    (b)to the extent the applicant’s submissions refer to relocation, they are irrelevant because the Tribunal made no findings in relation to relocation and did not need to do so in the context of its decision; and

    (c)it is otherwise not the function of the Court to form its own view as to the merits of the applicant’s protection claims.

    CONSIDERATION

    Need to establish jurisdictional error

35. In order to be entitled to relief, the applicant must establish that the Tribunal decision is affected by jurisdictional error.

36. Jurisdictional error was explained by Nettle and Gordon JJ in the High Court’s decision in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZMTA (2019) 264 CLR 421; [2019] HCA 3, where their Honours said at [81] (footnotes omitted):

    The categories of jurisdictional error are not closed. Jurisdictional error by a statutory decision-maker includes identifying a wrong issue; asking the wrong question; ignoring relevant material; relying on irrelevant material; in some cases, making an erroneous finding or reaching a mistaken conclusion; and failing to observe some applicable requirement of procedural fairness. As McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ said in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [(2001) 206 CLR 323 at 351 [82]]:

    “What is important, however, is that identifying a wrong issue, asking a wrong question, ignoring relevant material or relying on irrelevant material in a way that affects the exercise of power is to make an error of law. Further, doing so results in the decision-maker exceeding the authority or powers given by the relevant statute. In other words, if an error of those types is made, the decision-maker did not have authority to make the decision that was made; he or she did not have jurisdiction to make it.”

1. This Court does not have any jurisdiction to engage in merits review: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259; [1996] HCA 6 at [31]. It cannot decide whether the applicant meets the criteria for a protection visa.

   Failure to provide meaningful particulars

2. The applicant has not provided any meaningful particulars to the grounds in his written application to enable the Minister or the Court to properly understand the error that he is asserting in relation to each of his grounds. The applicant’s oral and written submissions do not provide the detail that is lacking in the written application. The Minister submits that the grounds should be dismissed for want of particularisation, relying on SZNXA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 775 at [21]. Although it would be open to me to dismiss the grounds on the basis that they are not particularised, it is also open to me, in circumstances where the applicant is self-represented, to decline to dismiss the grounds solely on the basis that they are not particularised: see, for example, Bala v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 600 at [7]. I consider the preferable course is to consider each of the applicant’s grounds notwithstanding that the applicant has not provided particulars.

   Ground 1

3. The applicant asserts by his first ground that the Tribunal denied him procedural fairness.

4. The Tribunal is required to comply with the provisions in Division 4 of Part 7 of the Migration Act, which comprise an exhaustive statement of the requirements of the natural justice hearing rule in relation to the matters that they deal with: s 422B(1) of the Migration Act.

5. I am satisfied that the Tribunal has complied with the provisions in Division 4 of Part 7 of the Migration Act where their exercise arose in the course of the review.

6. The Tribunal invited the applicant to appear before it at the hearing to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review, as required by s 425 of the Migration Act. On the materials before the Court, I am satisfied that the opportunity to appear was a real and meaningful one. The applicant was assisted by an interpreter and had his migration agent present. The Tribunal indicated in its reasons that it was mindful of the applicant’s medical conditions and gave him a number of breaks in the course of the hearing to allow him to stretch, move around and reposition. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant stated a number of times in the hearing that he was well enough to give evidence and proceed with the hearing. The applicant provided two medical certificates to the Tribunal. One indicated that he was unfit for work or study for three days in the week before the hearing. The other was provided in the week after the hearing. It referred to the applicant’s mental health and difficulties concentrating and remembering things. The medical certificate does not state that the applicant was unfit to give evidence and present arguments at the hearing on

   
   

   26 September 2016.

7. The invitation to attend the hearing complied with the requirements of s 425A of the Migration Act. The invitation advised the applicant of the day on which, and the time and place at which the applicant was scheduled to appear. It was sent to the applicant via email to his migration agent at the last email address given to the Tribunal for the purpose of the review, which is one of the methods prescribed by s 441A of the Migration Act. The original invitation to attend a hearing sent to the applicant on 16 May 2016 for a hearing on 5 August 2016 gave more than the 14 day notice period prescribed by reg 4.35D(3) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). That hearing was rescheduled to a later date in August 2016. The applicant then requested an adjournment for personal reasons and this request was granted. The notice of hearing on

   
   

   26 September 2016 was sent to the applicant on 5 August 2016, which is a reasonable notice period. The invitation also contained a statement to the effect of s 426A, which sets out what the Tribunal may do if the applicant fails to appear at the hearing.

8. The applicant was aware of the dispositive issues before the Tribunal, including issues in relation to his credibility, from the delegate’s decision and the Tribunal’s questioning of him at the hearing. The applicant had provided a copy of the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal with his application for review.

9. There was no information that the Tribunal was required to put to the applicant under ss 424A or 424AA of the Migration Act. All of the information taken into account by the Tribunal was information provided by the applicant himself, or country information, which is information not specifically about the applicant and is rather information about a class of persons of which the applicant is a member. This is excluded by s 424A(3)(a) of the Migration Act from the obligation to give to an applicant clear particulars of information that would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review.

10. The applicant was not denied procedural fairness by the Tribunal. Ground 1 is dismissed.

    Ground 2

11. By ground 2, the applicant asserts that the Tribunal applied the wrong legal test.

12. The Tribunal has accurately identified the relevant law for determining whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa. The Tribunal applied a version of the Migration Act that has since been amended. The version of the Migration Act that was applied by the Tribunal contained provisions relating to the grant of a protection visa as they applied at the date of the applicant’s protection visa application and it was appropriate for the Tribunal to have regard to this version.[1] The Tribunal has set out an accurate description of the relevant law at [29]-[42] and [87]-[88]. There is nothing in the Tribunal reasons that suggests that the Tribunal has misunderstood or misapplied the relevant law.

    [1] Significant amendments to the Migration Act were made by the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act 2014 (Cth) (2014 Amending Act). However, these changes only applied to applications made after 18 April 2015: s 2 and Schedule 5 item 28 of the 2014 Amending Act.

13. The Tribunal also had regard to PAM 3 and country information prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as required by Ministerial Direction 56, made under s 499 of the Migration Act.

14. Ground 2 is not established.

    Matters raised in applicant’s oral submissions

15. The applicant’s assertion that the Tribunal made a mistake because it did not grant him a visa is nothing more than an assertion by the applicant of the decision that he wanted the Tribunal to make, and does not allege jurisdictional error in the Tribunal decision.  The role of this Court is to assess the legality of the Tribunal decision. As indicated above, the Court does not have the power to consider for itself whether the applicant meets the criteria for a protection visa.

16. I have reviewed the materials in the court book in relation to the provision of interpreters to the applicant. The court book confirms that in his application for a protection visa and in his application for review by the Tribunal, the applicant requested a Sinhalese interpreter. The applicant also requested a Sinhalese interpreter in his completed response to a hearing invitation. The applicant was assisted at the Tribunal hearing by an interpreter in the Sinhalese language who was qualified by the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters. 

17. I cannot locate a record of the applicant’s entry or arrival interview in the court book. However, the Tribunal referred to the provision of an interpreter at the entry interview in its reasons at [18], when summarising the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal noted that when the applicant was asked about a plate in his leg at his interview with an officer of the Department, the applicant stated that he had never said anything about a plate in his leg and that there was a mistake by the interpreter. The applicant told the delegate that a Tamil interpreter was used for his entry interview. However, upon checking the records, the delegate found that the interpreter was a Sinhalese interpreter. 

18. The applicant also raised a similar issue about problems with a previous interpreter at his hearing before the Tribunal. However, as I understand the Tribunal’s description of the issue raised before it, the suggestion was that the error in interpretation occurred in relation to the applicant’s written claims for protection. The Tribunal said at [55] and [56]:

    55. The Tribunal raised its concerns that the applicant’s oral evidence was different to his written statement. The Tribunal noted that in his written statement the applicant indicated that in mid-2012 he was attacked by a gang in his home and his legs were so damaged that a plate had to be put in it.

    56.In response the applicant told the Tribunal that was wrong and that there had been a problem with the interpreter. While the Tribunal notes that the applicant had given the same response to his issue raised by the delegate in their interview, the Tribunal notes the written claim that the applicant’s leg was so damaged that a plate had to be put in, is very specific. The Tribunal also notes the written statement includes an interpreter declaration that the contents of the document were accurately and completely interpreted to the applicant in the Sinhalese language. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the written claim that the applicant’s leg was so damaged that a plate had to be put in it was the result of an interpreter mistake or a problem with the interpreter.

19. I have also reviewed the applicant’s written statement of his claims for protection dated

    
    

    4 July 2013 and note that it contains the following interpreter declaration:

    I, [name of interpreter], being an accredited interpreter in the Singhalese language, have accurately and completely interpreted the contents of this declaration from the English Language to Singhalese language to the person who signed the declaration above.

20. At his hearing before the Tribunal, the applicant explained that discrepancies in his previous evidence about whether the person he supported in the 2006 election was successful might be attributable to interpretation error. The Tribunal accepted that such interpreter mistakes can happen, but did not accept that it explained the other concerns raised by the Tribunal.

21. There is no evidence before the Court that would establish that there has been any interpretation error that would give rise to jurisdictional error in the Tribunal decision. Further, the manner in which the Tribunal addressed the applicant’s assertions of interpreter error was reasonably open to it. The Tribunal accepted that one of the applicant’s claims may have been affected by a minor error in interpretation, but that was not enough to overcome other concerns. The Tribunal did not accept that interpreter error was responsible for the applicant raising the very specific claim that he had a plate inserted into his leg as a result of injuries he sustained. It cannot be said that these findings were unreasonable in any way.

22. The matters raised by the applicant’s oral submissions do not give rise to jurisdictional error.

    Matters raised in applicant’s written submissions

23. Nothing raised in the applicant’s written submission gives rise to jurisdictional error. The applicant has not filed any amended application in the course of this proceeding and the Court has not previously refused to allow any amendment to his application.

24. To the extent that the applicant’s submission sets out the background and history of this matter and summarises his claims for protection, it does not assert any error in the Tribunal decision and does not give rise to jurisdictional error.

25. In [6] to [10] of the applicant’s written submissions, the applicant summarised why he fears he will still face harm if he is returned to Sri Lanka now. The applicant asserted that the major opponent of the UNP is the Sri Lanka Freedom Party, which is currently in power in Sri Lanka. The applicant submitted that he believes that the threat he would face in Sri Lanka is greater now than in the past. Based on the applicant’s past experiences, he believes that the police in Sri Lanka will not protect him if he is returned and he cannot relocate within Sri Lanka because his family is from Negombo and he has no roots anywhere else. The applicant believes that he will not have a chance of finding a safe environment for him to live in Sri Lanka. Further, the applicant asserted that it is not good to go back to Sri Lanka during the COVID-19 pandemic because the death toll in Sri Lanka is considerably high.

26. All of these matters address the merits of whether or not the applicant should be granted a protection visa. As indicated above, this is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. Events that have occurred after the Tribunal decision cannot give rise to jurisdictional error in the Tribunal decision: Parker v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 247 FCR 500; [2016] FCAFC 185 at [60] (per Griffiths and Perry JJ), [77] (per Mortimer J).

27. The applicant’s written submissions do not establish jurisdictional error.

    CONCLUSION

28. I have found that the applicant has not established jurisdictional error in the Tribunal decision. It follows that the application must be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding sixty-four (64) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Ladhams.

Dated: 11 February 2022