EVAN v Minister for Immigration

[2016] FCCA 2090

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

EVAN v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2016] FCCA 2090

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Student visa application – completion of 75% of principal course for the purposes of cl572.223 – money deposited for 3 months immediately before date of Student visa application – money deposit not so held – no jurisdictional error – application for judicial review dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.414
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

Cases cited:

Htun v Minister for Immigration (2001) 233 FCR 136

MZWDG v Minister of Immigration [2006] FCA 497

Applicant: RAKIB AHMED EVAN

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: MLG 329 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Dowdy

Hearing dates: 18 December 2015 and 5 May 2016

Date of Last Submission: 15 August 2016

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 4 October 2016

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person.

Counsel for the Respondents: Ms P Mitchell

Solicitors for the Respondents: Clayton Utz

THE ORDERS OF THE COURT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Application filed in this Court on 25 February 2014 is dismissed with costs.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 329 of 2014

RAKIB AHMED EVAN

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The Applicant is a male citizen of Bangladesh aged 29 years, having been born on 26 September 1987.

2. He seeks in this proceeding to quash a decision of the Second Respondent, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (at the time of the decision the Migration Review Tribunal) (Tribunal) dated 30 January 2014 affirming a decision dated 20 August 2012 of a Delegate of the First Respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Minister) refusing to grant the Applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa (Student visa). The Applicant also seeks a writ of mandamus directed to the Tribunal requiring the Tribunal to determine his application for review according to law.

Background

1. The Applicant applied for a Student visa on-shore on 4 June 2012. The only relevant subclass of the Student visa was subclass 572 to Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations). Clause 572.223 relevantly specified the following criteria at the time of decision for the Student visa:

   572.22—Criteria to be satisfied at time of decision

   …

   572.223

   (1)  The Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:

   (a)  the Minister is satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:

   (i)     the applicant’s circumstances; and

   (ii)    the applicant’s immigration history; and

   (iii)  if the applicant is a minor—the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

   (iv)    any other relevant matter; and

   (b)  the applicant meets the requirements of subclause (2).

   (2)  An applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if:

   (a)  the applicant gives the Minister evidence in accordance with the requirements mentioned in Schedule 5A for the highest assessment level for the applicant; and

   (b)  the Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, having regard to:

   (i)     the stated intention of the applicant to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted; and

   (ii)     any other relevant matter; and

   (c)  the Minister is satisfied that, while the applicant holds the visa, the applicant will have access to the funds demonstrated or declared in accordance with the requirements in Schedule 5A relating to the applicant’s financial capacity.

2. At the relevant time, Sch.5A of the Regulations and IMMI 12/005 (made pursuant to r.1.41 of the Regulations and having effect for the purpose of Sch.5A) provided that those making an application with a passport from Bangladesh were required to comply with the Assessment Level 4 criteria with respect to financial capacity as set out in Part 4 of Schedule 5A to the Regulations:

   5A405  Financial capacity

   (1)  The applicant must give, in accordance with this clause:

   (a)  evidence that the applicant has funds from an acceptable source that are sufficient to meet the following expenses for the first 24 months:

   (i)     course fees;

   (ii)    living costs;

   (iii)  school costs; and

   (aa)  a declaration by the applicant stating that he or she has access to funds from an acceptable source that are sufficient to meet course fees, living costs and school costs for the remainder of the applicant’s proposed stay in Australia after the first 24 months; and

   (b)  evidence that the applicant has funds from an acceptable source that are sufficient to meet travel costs; and

   (c)  evidence that the regular income of any individual (including the applicant) providing funds to the applicant was sufficient to accumulate the level of funding being provided by that individual.

   (1A) If the applicant is:

   (a)  fully funded; or

   (b)  an applicant:

   (i)  who is not funded, wholly or partly, by:

   (A)  the Commonwealth Government, or the government of a State or Territory; or

   (B) the government of a foreign country; or

   (C)  a multilateral agency; and

   (ii)    who proposes to undertake a course of study that is, or courses of study that are together, of a duration of less than 12 months; and

   (iii)  for whom, if applying in Australia, the proposed period of stay will result in the applicant’s total period of lawful stay in Australia being less than 12 months; or

   (c)  the subject of an arrangement by which the course fees, living costs and travel costs for the primary person’s full period, assessed for the primary person alone, will be met by:

   (i)     a provincial or state government in a foreign country, with the written support of the government of that country; or

   (ii)    an organisation specified by the Minister in a Gazette Notice for this paragraph;

   the applicant must give evidence that the applicant has access to funds that are sufficient to support each member of the applicant’s family unit who is not a family applicant.

   (2)  In this clause:

   acceptable individual means one or more of the following:

   (a)  the applicant;

   (b)  the applicant’s spouse or de facto partner;

   (c)  the applicant’s parents;

   (d)  the applicant’s grandparents;

   (e)  the applicant’s brothers and sisters;

   (f)  an uncle or aunt of the applicant who is:

   (i)     an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen; and

   (ii)  usually resident in Australia.

   financial support, from an applicant’s proposed education provider, means:

   (a)  a scholarship that:

   (i) is awarded on the basis of merit and an open selection process; and

   (ii)    is awarded to a student who is enrolled in a course leading to a Certificate IV qualification or a higher qualification; and

   (iii)   is awarded to the greater of:

   (A)  not more than 10% of overseas students in a course intake; and

   (B)  not more than 3 overseas students in a course intake; or

   (b)  a waiver of the applicant’s course fees carried out in the following circumstances:

   (i)  the applicant is part of an exchange program that involves:

   (A)  a formal agreement between an education provider and an education institution in a foreign country; and

   (B)  the reciprocal waiver of course fees as part of that agreement;

   (ii)    the applicant proposes to study full‑time;

   (iii)  the applicant’s proposed studies will be credited to a course undertaken by the applicant in the applicant’s home country.

   funds from an acceptable source means one or more of the following:

   (a)  if the applicant:

   (i)     has successfully completed at least 75% of the requirements for his or her principal course; and

   (ii)    has applied for the visa in order to complete the course; and

   (iii)  does not propose to undertake any further course;

   a money deposit held by an acceptable individual;

   (aa)  if paragraph (a) does not apply—a money deposit that an acceptable individual has held for at least the 3 months immediately before the date of the application;

   (b)  financial support from:

   (i)      the applicant’s proposed education provider; or

   (ii)     the Commonwealth Government, or the government of a State or Territory; or

   (iii)   the government of a foreign country; or

   (iv)   a corporation that:

   (A)  conducts commercial activities outside the country in which it is based; and

   (B)  employs the applicant in a role in relation to which the applicant’s principal course is of direct relevance; or

   (v)    a multilateral agency; or

   (vi)  a provincial or state government in a foreign country, provided with the written support of the government of that country; or

   (vii)       an organisation specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this subparagraph; or

   (viii)     an acceptable non‑profit organisation;

   (c)  a loan from a financial institution that is made to, and held in the name of, an acceptable individual;

   (d)  a loan from the government of the applicant’s home country.

3. In short, the Applicant needed to give evidence at time of decision that he had funds sufficient to meet course expenses, living costs and travelling costs in the form of a money deposit held by an acceptable individual. If he had successfully completed at least 75% of the requirements for his principal course he merely needed to show a money deposit held by an “acceptable individual”, but if he had not successfully completed at least 75% of the requirements for his principal course he had to show a money deposit from an “acceptable individual” which had been held for at least 3 months immediately before the date of the Student visa application.

Delegate’s Decision

1. Prior to the Delegate’s decision of 20 August 2012, the Applicant was sent an email from his Case Manager at the Department of Immigration and Citizenship which:

   a)Advised that adverse information had been received concerning the Applicant in that he was not currently enrolled in any course of study and had not attended any course of study since 19 September 2011;

   b)Requested that the Applicant provide evidence that he had sufficient funds to support himself for the first 24 months of the duration of his intended course of study in the assessed amount of $35,467;

   c)Advised that the Applicant must demonstrate a 3 month savings history of the assessed funds, calculated for the 3 month period immediately before the lodgement of his Student visa application on 4 June 2012;

   d)Advised that the said savings history would not be required if he had successfully completed at least 75% of the requirements for the course in which he was enrolled and indicating that a 75% completion of his course did not exempt him from showing the availability of the funds, but only that he did not have to show the 3 month savings history; and

   e)Invited comment, information and evidence relating to the matters which were the subject of the email.

2. The Applicant responded to this email disputing the status of his enrolment or alleged lack of study and otherwise providing financial evidence comprising:

   a)A  fixed deposit receipt for BDT 1,600,000, with the deposit made on 3 May 2012 with the Commercial Bank of Ceylon (Ceylon Commercial Bank Deposit); and

   b)A term deposit receipt for BDT 600,000 made on 31 July 2012 with the First Security Islami Bank (Islami First Security Deposit).

   It is to be observed that neither deposit satisfied the requirement of being held for at least 3 months immediately before 4 June 2012, with the Islami First Security Deposit having been made almost 2 months after the date of the Student visa application.

3. In the result, the Delegate in her Decision Record of 20 August 2012 found that:

   a)The Applicant, in giving evidence of the Ceylon Commercial Bank Deposit had not given evidence that such funds were sufficient to meet the assessed expenses of AUD 27,267 (reduced from the earlier assessed amount of AUD 35,467 because the Applicant had paid his course fees) because the deposit only amounted to AUD 18,745; and

   b)In any event the Ceylon Commercial Bank Deposit had not been held for at least three months before the date of the Student visa application;

   c)The Applicant had not provided any evidence that the holder of the Ceylon Commercial Bank Deposit was “an acceptable individual” who wished to financially support the Applicant;

   d)The Applicant had provided no evidence that he was enrolled in a course of at least one year’s duration as required;

4. The Delegate does not appear to have made any findings with respect to the Islami First Security Deposit.

5. In light of her findings the Delegate found that the Applicant did not meet the criteria for a Student visa and refused the same.

6. It should be noted that at no point leading up to the decision of the Delegate did the Applicant assert that he had completed at least 75% of the requirements of any course.

Decision of Tribunal

1. On 29 August the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Delegate’s decision. Mr Suraj Handa of Handa Immigration Specialists was given as the migration representative of the Applicant.

2. By letter dated 16 October 2013 sent to the Applicant’s migration representative, the Tribunal invited the Applicant to appear before it and give evidence and present arguments at a hearing on 11 November 2013. The letter also requested the Applicant to provide all documents on which he intended to rely to establish that he met the criteria for the Student visa and additionally specifically requested provision of, amongst other things:

   a)Documents showing his current enrolment in a registered course, as required for the grant of a Student visa;

   b)Documents demonstrating that the Applicant had sufficient funds, or access to funds, to pay course fees, living costs and travel costs over the relevant period, including:

   i)Evidence of fees of current or proposed courses he had already paid or still owed;

   ii)Evidence of funds from an acceptable source. The letter advised that if he sought to rely on a money deposit, he might need to show how long the deposit was held immediately before the date of his Student visa application.

3. By letter dated 8 November 2013 Mr Handa on behalf of the Applicant provided the Tribunal with a submission and supporting documents. It was said by Mr Handa that the Applicant wished to complete his studies before returning to Bangladesh and that the Applicant had “completed only his initial studies and he is enrolled for his further studies of Certificate III in Engineering Mechanical Trade followed by Diploma in Engineering Technology. The copies of certificates, transcripts and course enrolment letters are attached herewith.”

4. One of those course enrolment letters was dated 4 November 2013 from the Holmesglen Institute of TAFE (Holmesglen) which appears to indicate that the Applicant was soon to complete a course in Certificate III Engineering – Mechanical Trade Engineering which had commenced on 9 July 2012 and would end on 31 December 2013, and that on 3 February 2014 he intended to start the Diploma of Engineering Technology course which would end on 30 June 2014. It stated that the Applicant was a current student as at 4 November 2013 at Holmesglen and that he had “completed more than 51% of his studies in Diploma of Engineering Technology at Holmesglen”. There was also another Statement of Results from Holmesglen dated 30 October 2013, said to be of the Diploma of Engineering Technology course and indicating that he had obtained successful results in three modules during 2013. Those three courses do not appear to duplicate any of the courses outlined in another Statement of Results from Holmesglen also dated 30 October 2013 of the Certificate III Engineering – Mechanical Trade course. There is no apparent explanation of how the Applicant, as at 30 October 2013, had achieved 3 course results in the Diploma of Engineering Technology. In the letter of 4 November 2013 from Holmesglen he was only said to start that course on 3 February 2014.

5. Mr Handa also provided further copies of the said Ceylon Commercial Bank Deposit receipt and the Islami First Security Deposit receipt.

6. The hearing before the Tribunal took place on 11 November 2013 and a transcript of that hearing was tendered as evidence in the Applicant's case before me. The Applicant attended the Tribunal alone and the Tribunal hearing was conducted in English. The Applicant told the Tribunal he was just about to complete the Certificate III in Engineering – Mechanical Trade course in the next few weeks by completing some further exams.

7. The Applicant further asserted that he had achieved more than 51% of the Diploma of Engineering Technology course but the Tribunal member pointed out that it was strange that although Holmesglen had said the Diploma course did not start until February 2014 it at the same time had given a Statement of Results which indicated that the Applicant had completed three subjects or modules of that course. The Applicant appears to have asserted that there were only six subjects or modules in the Diploma of Engineering Technology course and that he had completed three, but the Tribunal member pointed out that no document from Holmesglen said that there were only six courses in the Diploma of Engineering Technology course.

8. The Applicant then went on to say that he assumed that there were six courses in the Diploma course and that he had completed three courses but then seemed to say that he did not actually know how many courses or modules there were in the Diploma course.

9. In any event, the short point is that at no time during the Tribunal hearing did the Applicant ever assert or contend to the Tribunal member that he had completed 75% of the requirements of any course.

10. Towards the end of the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal member raised with the Applicant whether he met the financial capacity requirements for the grant of a Student visa and pointed out that there was no current evidence of sufficient funds being held. He indicated that the Applicant should contact Mr Handa very quickly and get evidence on that issue to the Tribunal and the Applicant said that such evidence would be provided on the following day. The Tribunal member indicated that he would consider a request for further time which might not be granted, and he went on to tell the Applicant that "there may be other issues that are determinative of the application for the Student visa".

11. The next day, on 12 November 2013, Mr Handa provided further documents to the Tribunal, which included letters from the relevant Banks confirming that the Ceylon Commercial Bank Deposit and the Islami First Security Deposit were still held and maintained. The letter from Mr Handa said that the Applicant's father had agreed to provide him with all necessary financial support during his stay in Australia and referred to the two Bank deposits as the father's "savings of more than three months old" and that receipts for those Bank deposits were "sufficient to satisfy Schedule 5A criteria" for the Applicant’s assessment level.

12. Mr Handa sent another letter on 13 November 2013 saying that the Bank deposits were funded from the Applicant's father’s retirement benefits.   Then by a further letter dated 14 November 2013 the Applicant provided bank account statements in the name of the Applicant’s father and mother from the Sonali Bank and the Agrani Bank and Islami Bank for various periods but those periods either commenced after 4 June 2012 when the Student visa application was lodged or clearly showed insufficient funds for the required period.

1. The Tribunal affirmed the Delegate’s decision to refuse to grant the Applicant a Student visa. In its Decision Record of 30 January 2014 the Tribunal found that:

   a)The Applicant owed $5,750 in course fees and would incur approximately $7,500 in living expenses and needed to make provision for approximately $1,000 in air fares, meaning that the Applicant needed to demonstrate "sufficient funds" of some $14,250, as required by Schedule 5A.

   b)The Applicant had not yet commenced the Diploma course, which commenced on 3 February 2014, and that accordingly the Applicant had to give evidence that he had sufficient funds for at least 3 months immediately before his Student visa application.

   c)The Ceylon Commercial Bank Deposit was not  held for 3 months prior to the date of the Student visa application, so those funds were not "funds from an acceptable source".

   d)The Islami First Security Deposit was not held for 3 months prior to the date of the Student visa application, so those funds were not "funds from an acceptable source".

   e)The financial documentation provided after the Tribunal hearing by the Applicant under cover of his letter of 14 November 2013 from the Sonali Bank and Islami Bank did not provide evidence that the funds in the accounts were held for 3 months immediately prior to 4 June 2012. The Tribunal did not specifically refer to the account statements from the Islami Bank or the Agrani Bank, the latter of which was largely illegible as it appeared in the Court Book, but in any event these ledgers commenced on 30 June 2012 and 30 July 2012 respectively and hence were not accounts showing a money deposit held for at least 3 months prior to 4 June 2012.

   f)The Applicant did not satisfy cl.572.223(2)(a).

2. Accordingly, in light of these findings the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate's decision to refuse to the Applicant a Student visa.

Proceeding in This Court

1. In  his  Application  filed  in  this  Court  on 25 February 2014 the Applicant relied on the following Grounds:

   1.Breach of the rules of natural justice occurred.

   2.According to Schedule 5A, I met the requirement to get a student visa (subclass 572).

   3.I have sufficient funds from “acceptable source".

   4.I have required level of English language sufficiency, have sufficient progress in the enrolled course (registered).

   5.The Delegate did not rely on the provided documents.

   6.I was enrolled in a course which led to diplomas Level and I started the course (the result of the units which was taken for diploma course was provided).

   7.Procedures that are required by law was not observed.

   8.The documents demanded by the delegate during the hearing was provided.

   9. My migration agent did not attend the hearing which he was supposed to attend, some documents were submitted by the migration agent later, but I could not rely on him because he did not attend the hearing, being a student it was not possible to follow up the case by myself.

   10.I requested to MRT to inform me about any further documents if they need before making decision.

   11.An  irrelevant consideration  into account in the exercise of the power.

   12.There were some documents provided to indicate my parents regular income which was demanded during hearing. These documents were not provided to indicate the funds of an “acceptable source”. Other documents were submitted to indicate the fund from acceptable source.

   13.An error of law had been committed as the documents was not relied on or verified.

2. Notwithstanding the width of these grounds, at the commencement of the first hearing of this matter in Melbourne on 18 December 2015 the Applicant's complaint became much more defined and to the effect that he had already completed 75% of his course, being the Diploma course, by the time  of  the hearing before the Tribunal and that therefore for the purposes of the definition of “funds from an acceptable source” he only had to show a money deposit from an “acceptable individual” and he did not have to show that the money deposit had been held for at least 3 months immediately before the date of his Student visa application.

3. There also seemed to be a suggestion that he had made this assertion to the Tribunal at the hearing on 11 November 2013. In these circumstances,  having  regard  to  the  disadvantages  suffered  by  the Applicant from not being legally represented and notwithstanding that he agreed that there was no mention in his Grounds of  this  argument,  I considered that  the  Applicant  should  have  the opportunity of obtaining a transcript of the Tribunal hearing, and the proceeding at that point was adjourned part-heard to allow him to do so.

4. However,  having  now read  and  considered  the transcript  of the  Tribunal hearing it seems clear to me that there was never any assertion by the Applicant and it was never part of his case before the Tribunal that he did not have to show that the relevant money deposit had been held for at  least  3  months  immediately  before  his  Student  visa  application because he had  successfully completed  at least 75% of the Diploma course. The assertion by Mr Handa (referred to in paragraph [22] above) was rather that the Ceylon Commercial Bank Deposit and Islami First Security Deposit had been deposited for more than three months. I should at this point  note that the Applicant  at the resumed hearing  on  5  May  2016  agreed  that  the  Diploma  course  was  the "principal course" for the purposes of the definition of "funds from an acceptable source".

5. Further,  not  only  was  there  no  oral  submission  or  assertion  by  the Applicant that he had completed 75% of the Diploma course, there was also no such assertion in any correspondence or submission from Mr Handa, nor was there any documentary evidence which substantiated that he had completed 75% of the Diploma course. No such claim had been made to the Delegate. 

6. The documentary evidence in relation to his academic achievements at Holmesglen was confusing, to say the least. The letter of 4 November 2013 from Holmesglen referred to at paragraph [15] above indicated that he had commenced the Certificate III Engineering – Mechanical Trade course on 9 July 2012 and it was to end on 31 December 2013, and his oral evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing on 11 November 2013 was that he had some further exams in that course to undergo in the next few weeks. The letter went on to state that the Diploma course was only to commence on 3 February 2014 and then went on inconsistently to assert that the Applicant had completed more than 50% of his studies in the Diploma course and there was a Holmesglen Statement of Results of the Diploma course dated 30 October 2013 indicating that he had completed 3 courses of the Diploma course.

7. Nevertheless, in my view it was unnecessary for the Tribunal to make any specific findings about whether or not, for the purposes of the definition of "funds from an acceptable source", the Applicant had successfully completed at least 75% of the requirements of the Diploma course. No such assertion or case was ever made to the Tribunal and on the face of the documentary evidence before the Tribunal, at best for the Applicant he had only completed more than 51% of the Diploma course. There was no suggestion, nor could there be, that "more than 51%" could mean or equate to "at least 75%".

8. Of course, the Tribunal was required under s.414 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to consider the claims made by the Applicant and for it to make a decision without having considered all of his claims would be to fail to complete the exercise of jurisdiction embarked on: Allsop J (as he then was) (with whom Spender J agreed) in Htun v Minister for Immigration (2001) 233 FCR 136 at 152 ([42]).

9. Further, the Tribunal is not to approach the way an Applicant puts his or her claims on the basis of strict pleading. Rather, as Young J said in MZWDG v Minister of Immigration [2006] FCA 497 at ([38]):

   [38]  In my view, it is a natural consequence of the inquisitorial process, to paraphrase Merkel J, that the Tribunal must consider the case that arises from the evidence before it, regardless of how that case is specifically put by the applicant. While the authorities make it clear that the Tribunal is not required to make the applicant’s case, it is bound to consider a case on a basis not articulated by the applicant if it is raised by the evidentiary material that is before the Tribunal or by the Tribunal’s findings based on that evidence. It is a not an obligation that can be discharged simply by reference to the terms in which the applicant articulates his claim.

10. However, in this case, on the evidentiary material before the Tribunal there was nothing which could support any finding that the Applicant had successfully completed 75% of his principal course.

11. A further complaint from the Applicant seemed to be to the effect that because the Tribunal member raised with the Applicant towards the end of the Tribunal hearing a particular lack of evidence, namely current evidence of “sufficient funds” being held, this constituted a representation to the Applicant that all of his evidence in support of his application was otherwise sufficient to lead to a successful application for review of the Delegate’s decision.

12. I reject that argument. The transcript of the Tribunal hearing indicates that the Tribunal member raised an obvious specific gap in the evidence which concerned him, and he afforded the Applicant an opportunity to rectify that gap. The Tribunal member is not to be taken as otherwise suggesting or representing that he was satisfied with the sufficiency of the other evidence led in support of the Applicant’s application for review. The Tribunal member pointed out that it was only on Friday afternoon, 8 November 2013 that he had received a bundle of documents to read before the Tribunal hearing and the fact that there was nothing in terms of current financial information starkly jumped out at him. By affording the Applicant an opportunity to provide further evidence on that issue, the Tribunal member was not representing that the evidence otherwise given by the Applicant was sufficient. As already mentioned in paragraph [21] above, the Tribunal member specifically stated to the Applicant, “…there may be other issues that are determinative of the application”.

13. The Applicant has not suffered any practical injustice in this regard.

14. I have considered the Grounds in the Applicant's application to this Court, his oral submissions and his written submissions filed on 29 March 2016 and I do not consider that the Applicant has established any jurisdictional error by the Tribunal or any breach of procedural fairness.   

15. Accordingly, the Application must be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding forty (40) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Dowdy

Date: 4 October 2016