EDU16 v Minister for Immigration
[2019] FCCA 2449
•3 September 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| EDU16 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2019] FCCA 2449 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Judicial Review – Temporary Protection Visa – whether the Immigration Assessment’s Authority is affected by jurisdictional error – no error. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36, 65, 473CB, 473DD, 473DE |
| Cases cited: ARG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 250 FCR 109 |
| Applicant: | EDU16 |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY |
| File Number: | MLG 2838 of 2016 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Obradovic |
| Hearing date: | 3 September 2018 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 3 September 2018 |
| Delivered at: | Parramatta |
| Delivered on: | 3 September 2019 |
REPRESENTATION
| Appearing for the Applicant: | Self-Represented |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Ms Whittemore |
| Solicitors for the First Respondent: | Sparke Helmore |
| Appearing for the Second Respondent: | No appearance |
ORDERS
The Application filed 29 December 2016 is dismissed.
The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 2838 of 2016
| EDU16 |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
These are Reasons for Judgment in respect of an application for judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (“IAA”) dated 5 December 2016, which affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minster to refuse the grant of a Temporary Protection (Subclass 785) Visa to the applicant (“TPV”).
To obtain relief from the Court, the applicant must show that the IAA’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error. A decision affected by jurisdictional error is, as a matter of law, no decision at all. A jurisdictional error in the requisite sense of these proceedings can be understood as an error which has led the IAA to somehow fail to fulfil its duty and function of reviewing the decision of the delegate.
The application raises four grounds of review:
a)The IAA's finding that the applicant was abducted and persecuted in 2012 due to his business and wealth and not due to his involvement or support for the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam (“LTTE”) was so illogical and irrational reasoning which was not supported by evidence.
b)The IAA did not assess that applicant's claim cumulatively being a wealthy Tamil of perceived political opinion against the government of Sri Lanka due to his brother's link with the LTTE.
c)The IAA did not assess the Applicant's integer claims of being a Young wealthy Tamil from the North of Sri Lanka with perceived LTTE political opinion.
d)The IAA has not complied with ss473DD and 473DE of the Migration Act (Cth) 1958 when finding that there are no exceptional circumstances to justify considering new information.
Background
The applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, arrived on Cocos Island as an unauthorised maritime arrival on 14 October 2012. On 5 January 2013, the applicant participated in an entry interview and was assisted by a Tamil interpreter, and on 2 February 2016, the applicant applied for the TPV. On 26 April 2016, the applicant provided further employment and education information at the Department’s request.
On 17 June 2016, the applicant attended an interview with a delegate of the Minister (“delegate”) and on 8 July 2016, the applicant’s representative provided post-interview submissions to the delegate. On 19 August 2016, the delegate refused to grant the applicant the TPV.
On 22 August 2016, the decision was referred to the IAA for review under Part 7AA of the Act. On 27 September 2016, the applicant provided a written submission; statutory declaration of the applicant; a letter from the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (“HRC”); and a letter from N. Sivasakthy Ananthan, Member of Parliament, Vanni District to the IAA.
On 5 December 2016, the IAA affirmed the delegate’s decision on review.
The decision of the IAA may be summarised as follows[1]:
[1] The Court respectfully adopts the summary of the IAA’s decision as contained in the Respondent’s Amended Written Submissions
Information considered by the IAA[2]
[2] CB: 160-161
a)The IAA had regard to the material referred to it by the Department under s473CB of the Act. It also had regard to the IAA submission and found that to the extent that the submission referred to information that was before the delegate at the time of primary decision, or contained legal submissions going towards the delegate decision, it was not new information and considered it.
b)In relation to the HRC letter and the IAA statement from the applicant referring to recent developments, given the recent nature of the developments the IAA was prepared to accept that the information could not have been provided to the Minister and that there were exceptional circumstances that justified considering the information (although noting that no submissions were made by the applicant in relation to s473DD of the Act).
c)In relation to the country information reports referred to in the IAA submission that were not before the delegate, the IAA found that the reports pre-dated the delegate’s decision and so was not satisfied that the information could not have been provided to the Minister before the delegate’s decision was made; nor was it satisfied that it contained credible personal information. The IAA was not satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances to consider the country information reports.
d)In relation to the applicant’s request for a hearing set out in the IAA submission, the IAA was satisfied that the issues raised by the applicant were discussed at the interview and that the applicant’s submission engaged with any concerns the applicant had with the delegate’s decision. The IAA was therefore not satisfied that an interview was necessary.
Claims relating to the 2012 abduction[3]
[3] CB: 162-169
e)The IAA accepted that the applicant ran a successful business with his uncle and fell into the particular social groups “wealthy Tamil businessmen in Sri Lanka; wealthy Tamil businessmen from Vavuniya; whole sale grocers in Sri Lanka; or Tamil traders from the north of Sri Lanka”.
f)The IAA found that the applicant’s main claims stemmed from an abduction in May 2012. The IAA found that there had been discrepancies in his evidence in relation to the claimed abduction, such as the timing of his release and the time it took for him to return home when he was released, but it gave no weight to these minor discrepancies. However, the IAA had concerns in relation to the events following the abduction and found the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence about his living arrangements following the abduction and/or whether his home was visited while he remained in Sri Lanka was significant and raised questions about what occurred after the abduction.
g)In relation to the three letters that the applicant provided to the delegate in support of the application, the IAA found that these were not independent corroboration of his claims but records of reports of his and his family’s claims as made to third party organisations. The IAA further found that they were incomplete accounts in that they omitted key aspects of the applicant’s claims. Although it could not discount that these letters were genuine because of their content, the IAA afforded them little weight.
h)In relation to the police report the applicant provided, the IAA found that it contained discrepancies, but accepted that the report was made and that it provided corroboration of the abduction.
i)The IAA noted that during the primary review before the delegate, the applicant had consistently claimed not to know the identity of the people targeting him, however in his submissions and statement to the IAA, the applicant definitively claimed that the Sri Lankan Army (“SRA”) and the Sri Lankan Criminal Investigation Department (“CID”) were responsible for the continued visiting and questioning of his family. The IAA found that this shift in the evidence was significant and brought into question the reliability of these claims.
j)The IAA noted that the applicant’s representative had submitted that the applicant’s abduction was not a “crime of opportunity” but rather was because of the applicant’s status as a wealthy and successful Tamil businessman from the North operating a wholesale goods business with suspected links to the LTTE. Although the IAA accepted that the CID and SLA detained and seriously mistreated persons suspected of involvement with the LTTE, it found that the applicant’s claim that a ransom was demanded was at odds with the country information of the treatment of persons suspected of involvement with the LTTE by the CID, the SLA or other Sri Lankan authorities. On the basis that: no one identified themselves during the abduction; no men wore uniforms; no formal investigation was undertaken; the applicant was not invited to attend the CID offices or SLA camps; and, the two phone calls received made no reference to involvement with the LTTE, the IAA found that the applicant’s abduction was not likely to have been related to any CID, SLA or other Sri Lankan authority as a part of an investigation or other security or government operation.
k)The IAA found that the abduction was not related to any genuine suspicion of LTTE involvement, but was a criminal act directed at the applicant as a person who owned a successful business and was perceived as wealthy. The IAA found that the behaviour of those who abducted the applicant to be consistent with the activities of criminal gangs and former paramilitary groups. In relation to the paramilitary groups, with reference to country information, the IAA found that at the time the applicant claimed to be abducted in 2012, these groups had renounced their paramilitary activities but were reported to have engaged in human rights violations and criminal activities.
l)The IAA accepted that: the applicant was abducted in 2012; a large ransom was paid for his release; and that two further telephone threats were made. However, the IAA found that the threat to the applicant had ceased, given he was able to live at home for three months unhindered and he would not have been able to avoid interaction with this group altogether as he did if there was a real threat that he would be abducted again.
m)The IAA found it difficult to accept that if these unknown persons were the authorities they would not have attempted to contact or question the applicant in the intervening three and half months before he departed Sri Lanka. For the same reasons, the IAA found it difficult to accept that the unknown persons had visited the applicant’s house after he left Sri Lanka. The IAA found that if these persons were the abductors, no obvious demands were made for ransom. Alternatively, if these people were the authorities, that they never identified themselves or the reasons they needed to contact the applicant, prior to August 2016. The IAA had difficulty accepting that if these threats were genuine, the applicant’s family would not have sought the identity or intentions of these persons in the three or four years that they continued to visit his family after his departure.
n)In relation to the HRC letter, the IAA found that it provided no details of whether any investigation was undertaken by the HRC into the complaint that his brother had been detained by the CID on 12 August 2016 and provided no independent corroboration of the alleged events. In relation to the content of the HRC letter, the IAA found that it was difficult to accept that the CID would so readily volunteer information to the brother about their investigations into the applicant, given that in the previous four years they had not even identified themselves as investigating the applicant’s association with the LTTE. Although it could not discount the genuineness of the documents provided by the applicant, the IAA found that their value was outweighed by the other evidence before it.
o)As the IAA found no persons or authorities were interested in the applicant between 2012 and the middle of 2016, it found it implausible that the CID, SLA or any other authority would more recently approach his family about his whereabouts, or that they detained, questioned and threatened his brother.
p)The IAA accepted that the applicant was targeted for kidnapping, abduction, extortion and ransom in 2012, that his father was killed in 2009, and his uncle shot in 2006. However, it did not accept these killings had anything to do with the applicant’s personal circumstances.
q)The IAA did not accept that the applicant had any actual or imputed connection to the LTTE, whether through his business or for any other reason, and did not accept that he was targeted in 2012 for these reasons. Nor did the IAA accept that the Sri Lankan authorities (including the CID or SLA) or any other person had an interest in him if he returned to Sri Lanka.
r)The IAA was satisfied that the applicant was targeted because he had a successful business in Vavuniya. It accepted that he was targeted as either: a wealthy Tamil businessman in Sri Lanka; a wealthy Tamil businessman from Vavuniya; a wholesale grocer in Sri Lanka; or, a Tamil trader from the north of Sri Lanka.
s)The IAA accepted that if the applicant returned to Sri Lanka he would recommence his business or start a new business, and if he did not, he may continue to be seen as a wealthy Tamil or Tamil businessman. However, having regard to country information, the IAA found that there were positive and concrete indicators that the Sri Lankan authorities had addressed the issues with a resulting fall in the incidence of abductions for ransom since the end of the conflict. Accordingly, it found that the chance of him facing serious harm in the future on this basis to be remote.
t)The IAA found that there was not a real chance that the applicant would face harm from a criminal gang, former paramilitary or any other person or group for reason of being a member of the particular social group of: a wealthy Tamil businessman in Sri Lanka; a wealthy Tamil businessman from Vavuniya; a wholesale grocer in Sri Lanka; Tamil traders from the north of Sri Lanka; or, any other iteration of these grounds. The IAA further found that there was no chance of him being targeted by any Sri Lankan authority on the basis of any actual or imputed or suspected connection to the LTTE
Claims relating to ethnicity and political opinion
u)The IAA found that beyond the kidnapping and extortion, the applicant had not claimed to have been harassed or mistreated by the SLA, the CID, paramilitaries, the Sri Lanka authorities or any other groups for reasons related to his race, age, profile, residency in a former conflict are in the north of Sri Lanka or any actual or imputed connection to the LTTE.
v)Although the IAA accepted that the applicant’s father and uncle were killed, it did not accept that there was any credible evidence that his family had been targeted for reasons associated with the LTTE or otherwise. It also did not accept there was any link between his father’s death, his uncle’s abduction and his own abduction. The IAA was satisfied that the applicant had no profile as a person connected to the LTTE or other separatist profile and neither did his family. Further the IAA did not accept that what occurred to the applicant’s friend on return to Sri Lanka, or to the shopkeepers, had any link to the applicant’s circumstances.
w)The IAA accepted that the applicant’s family was not “untouched” by the hardship faced by Tamils during the civil war period, however with reference to country information, and in the absence of a relevant LTTE profile, the IAA was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of harm on account of any actual or imputed LTTE connection.
x)Although the IAA acknowledged that human rights abuses occurred in Sri Lanka it did not accept that applicant’s representative’s contention that there remained widespread systematic human rights abuses in Sri Lanka towards Tamils, such as the applicant. The IAA accepted that there was some societal discrimination against certain ethnic groups but noted that the applicant has not claimed or referred to having encountered discrimination in the past and was able to run a successful business for several years before leaving the country. Having regard to country information, the IAA found that potential for the applicant to face societal discrimination as a Tamil to be remote.
y)Considering all the claims before it, including in a “cumulative sense” the IAA was satisfied that the applicant would not face a real chance of serious harm for reason of his ethnicity, age, profile, and/or home area if he returned to Sri Lanka or any actual or imputed or suspected connection to the LTTE or other Tamil separatists.
Claims related to illegal departure and seeking asylum
z)With reference to country information, the IAA found that the applicant may be questioned as part of the airport screening process and that returnees with a low profile were not generally at risk of harm on return to Sri Lanka. The IAA found on the basis of his low profile, there was not a real chance that the applicant would be harmed or mistreated because he is a failed asylum seeker, a returnee or someone who left Sri Lanka illegally.
aa)The IAA accepted that the applicant may be punished under the Sri Lanka Immigrants and Emigrants Act (“I & E Act”) because of his illegal departure and that he may be fined. However, as the fine could be paid in instalments it did not accept that this would cause the applicant economic hardship or threaten his capacity to subsist. The IAA was satisfied that any fine imposed or bail requirement would not amount to serious harm. It accepted that he may be detained for several days awaiting an opportunity to appear before a Magistrate and that such detention may occur in a prison that does not meet international standards. However it found that the poor prison conditions were due to economic reasons and not a result of any systematic or intentional conduct by the Sri Lanka authorities. The IAA was also satisfied that any questioning and detention the applicant may experience would be relatively brief and would not constitute serious harm. Considered cumulatively, the IAA was not satisfied that the harm the applicant may face on the basis of his illegal departure in terms of any questioning, fine or detention would constitute serious harm.
bb)The IAA also found on an independent basis that the provision and penalties of the I & E Act were laws of general application, non-discriminatorily applied and therefore would not amount to persecution.
cc)The IAA was satisfied that the process or penalty the applicant may face on return to Sri Lanka because of his illegal departure or as a failed asylum seeker would not constitute persecution for the purposes of the Act.
dd)The IAA found that there was not a real chance of the applicant facing serious harm in the form of kidnapping, abduction, any form of extortion or harm, from the Sri Lankan authorities, any paramilitary group, criminal gangs, or any other group or person, for reasons associated with his status as a wealthy Tamil or business owner, or any related particular social group.
ee)Considering the claims individually and cumulatively, the IAA was satisfied that the applicant would not face a real chance of serious harm on return to Sri Lanka on account of: any actual or imputed political opinion or connection to the LTTE; his age, ethnicity, profile as a young Tamil male from the North; or as a result of departing Sri Lanka illegally and seeking asylum in Australia. The IAA found that the applicant did not satisfy s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Complementary protection
ff)The IAA accepted that the applicant may face a degree of societal discrimination or questioning on return to Sri Lanka. However, with reference to country information, it found that there was no suggestion that any discrimination or questioning and monitoring would amount to the death penalty, arbitrary deprivation of life or torture, and would not involve the intentional infliction of pain or suffering or extreme humiliation. The IAA accepted that Tamils may face societal discrimination, questioning or monitoring, but it was not satisfied that this amounted to significant harm.
gg)The IAA noted that it had accepted that the applicant may be detained, questioned and fined on return to Sri Lanka on account of his illegal departure but did not accept that any brief detention, questioning, fine or other penalty amounted to significant harm under the Act. Further, if found that such penalties did not constitute the death penalty, arbitrary derivation of life or torture, or involve the intentional infliction of pain or suffering or extreme humiliation. The IAA found that while the conditions of prison were poor there was no intention to inflict pain or suffering or extreme humiliation and that such poor prison conditions did not amount to significant harm under the Act. The IAA found that any process or penalty the applicant may face would not constitute significant harm.
hh)Relying on its anterior findings the IAA found that the applicant would not face a real risk of significant harm for reasons associated with: being a wealthy Tamil or business owner (or any related particular social group); on the basis of any actual or imputed political opinion or connection to the LTTE; his age, his ethnicity, profile as young Tamil male from the North; or, as a result of departing Sri Lanka illegally or seeking asylum in Australia. The IAA was not satisfied that the applicant satisfied s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Hearing before this Court
The applicant did not file any written submissions, but rather took up the opportunity of making oral submissions to the Court at the hearing.
Those oral submissions failed to address in any meaningful manner the grounds for judicial review articulated in the Application.
The applicant submitted that:
a)The IAA accepted ‘so many’ of his points but then did not provide proper reasons for rejecting his visa application;
b)The IAA did not consider the applicant’s claim that he will be arrested upon his return, and that he will be subject to torture, murder and sexual violence.
c)The IAA did not consider or take into account that the Sri Lankan authorities will use the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1978 under Sri Lankan law, that the police and CID can arrest the applicant and keep him in detention without trial, claiming that he is a nationalist;
d)The IAA did not make an even handed decision, that is the decision was one sided in that it sided with the Department rather than the applicant; and
e)The IAA did not give the applicant any reasons as to why his claim was not accepted.
The applicant, through his submissions, expressed his disbelief as to how the IAA could reach the decision it reached if it had considered all of the evidence which he had referred it to. In essence, the applicant sought an impermissible merits review of the IAA’s decision.
The respondent filed amended written submissions which were relied upon at hearing. Oral submissions were made answering the applicant’s submissions and supplementing the written submissions.
Ground 1
By ground one, the applicant contended that it was irrational or illogical for the IAA to find that the applicant was abducted due to his business and wealth and not due to his support for the LTTE.
In Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS[4] Crennan and Bell JJ set out the test for irrationality or illogicality as follows:
“…the test for illogicality or irrationality must be to ask whether logical or rational or reasonable minds might adopt different reasoning or might differ in any decision or finding to be made on evidence upon which the decision is based. If probative evidence can give rise to different processes of reasoning and if logical or rational or reasonable minds might differ in respect of the conclusions to be drawn from that evidence, a decision cannot be said by a reviewing court to be illogical or irrational or unreasonable, simply because one conclusion has been preferred to another possible conclusion.”
[4] (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [131]
It is not enough for the question of fact to be one on which reasonable minds may come to different conclusions[5]. A decision cannot be said to be illogical, irrational or unreasonable simply because one conclusion has been preferred to another possible conclusion.[6]
[5] ARG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 250 FCR 109 at [47].
[6] Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZUXN [2016] FCA 5 at [52]
The Court finds having regard to the IAA’s reasons as outlined earlier, that its findings were open to it on the evidence before it.
The applicant has not demonstrated any, let alone, “extreme” illogicality in the Tribunal’s reasoning[7] and his description of the IAA’s reasoning as being illogical is an expression of disagreement with the decision.[8] The applicant’s allegations do no more than seek impermissible merits review.
[7] CQG15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 146 at [61]
[8] Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS and Another (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [124].
Ground 1 is not made out.
Ground 2
By ground two, the applicant contends that the IAA did not assess his claim cumulatively being a wealthy Tamil of perceived political opinion against the government of Sri Lanka due to his brother’s link with the LTTE.
The IAA explicitly found[9] that considering the applicant’s claims cumulatively, there was no real chance that the applicant would face serious harm for reason of being a wealthy Tamil businessmen in Sri Lanka or on the basis of any actual, imputed or suspected connection to the LTTE. The IAA further found, relying on its anterior findings that, the applicant would not face a real risk of significant harm for the reasons claimed[10].
[9] At [53] and [81]-[82] of its decision see CB 169, 174
[10] CB: 175-176
Ground 2 is not made out.
Ground 3
By ground three, the applicant contends that the IAA did not assess the Applicant's integer claims of being a young wealthy Tamil from the North of Sri Lanka with perceived LTTE political opinion.
The IAA considered the applicant’s claims in relation to being a wealthy Tamil from the North of Sri Lanka but found that the chance of harm on this basis was remote. The IAA also considered the applicant’s claim to have perceived LTTE links but did not accept that he had any actual, imputed or suspected connection to the LTTE, whether through is business or for any other reason. Further and cumulatively, the IAA did not not accept that he would face serious harm or a real risk of significant harm for these reasons.[11]
[11] CB: 162, 164,165, 167, 169, 174
Ground 3 is not made out.
Ground 4
By ground three, the applicant contends that the IAA has not complied with ss473DD and 473DE of the Migration Act (Cth) 1958 when finding that there are no exceptional circumstances to justify considering new information.
In PlaintiffM174/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[12] the plurality held that:
a)Any new information sought by the IAA must be information not before the Minister or delegate at the time of decision and be considered relevant by the IAA;
b)However, in order to take that new information into account, the IAA must comply with s 473DD and, where applicable, s 473DE of the Act. Even if the IAA finds that there are exceptional circumstances under s 473DD(a), that information can only be considered if it additionally meets the criteria in either s 473DD(b)(i) or (ii). The criterion in s 473DD(b)(ii) is that the new information was not, and could not have been, provided to the Minister.
[12] [2018] HCA 16 at [6] to [38]
On 27 September 2016, the applicant made a submission to the IAA. The IAA was not satisfied that the submission in so far as it referred to information before the delegate at the time of the primary decision or contained legal submission going towards the delegate’s decision, was new information. The submissions were nevertheless considered by the IAA in its assessment of the applicant’s case.
The submission also contained “two new pieces of information”. These were a letter from the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka dated 15 August 2016 and an undated declaration from the applicant referring to recent developments. The IAA accepted that this information was not and could not have been provided to the Minster before the delegate made his/her decision. The IAA was satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances to justify considering this information.
Thirdly, the submission contained references to a number of country information reports which were not before the delegate. The IAA was not satisfied that this information was not, and could not have been, provided to the Minister before the Minister made the decision pursuant to s65 of the Act. Furthermore, the IAA was not satisfied that the information contained credible personal information which was not previously known, and had it been known, may have affected the consideration of the referred applicant’s claims. The IAA found that to the extent that the reports contained new information, it was not satisfied that there were exceptional circumstances to justify considering the new information.
The applicant has not identified to this Court how the IAA has failed to comply with ss473DD or 473DE when finding that there are no exceptional circumstances to justify considering new information.
Section 473DD of the Act provides that the IAA must not consider new information unless the cumulative requirements in s473DD(a), and one or both of the limbs in s473DD(b) are satisfied.
The High Court has made clear that what will amount to exceptional circumstances is inherently incapable of exhaustive statement.[13] The Full Court of the Federal Court has held that whilst the requirements of subparagraphs (a) and (b) of s473DD are cumulative, they may nevertheless overlap with the effect that the IAA’s consideration of either or both of the limbs in subparagraph (b) may inform the IAA’s satisfaction under subparagraph (a) as to whether there are exceptional circumstances to justify considering the new information.[14]
[13] Plaintiff M174/2016 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] HCA 16
[14] Minster for Immigration and Border Protection v BBS16 [2017] FCAFC 176 at [102]
In the circumstances of this case, the IAA found that neither of the two limbs of s473DD(b) was satisfied. Even if, the IAA had found that exceptional circumstances had existed, that is it had satisfied itself as to the requirement under s473DD(1), it was still not satisfied as to 473DD(b) and as such it could not in any event, have considered the new information.
Ground 4 is not made out.
Conclusion
For all of the above reasons, the applicant has failed to establish that the decision of the IAA is affected by any jurisdictional error. Therefore, the application is dismissed.
I certify that the preceding thirty-six (36) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Obradovic
Associate:
Date: 3 September 2019
1
5
2