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

[2021] FCCA 1434

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Martak v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1434

File number:

SYG 1094 of 2020

Judgment of:

JUDGE KENDALL

Date of judgment:

29 June 2021

Catchwords:

MIGRATION – Student visa – decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness – whether the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant information – whether the Tribunal’s failure to “act quickly” amounted to jurisdictional error – whether the applicant was denied an opportunity to provide further material – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 359, 359B, 476, 499

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), cl 500.212 of Schedule 2

Cases cited:

Bala v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2019] FCA 600

Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163

Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437

Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332

Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZLIX [2008] FCAFC 17

Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611

Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259

MZAIB v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392

NAIS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 77

SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2005) 228 CLR 294

SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80

Number of paragraphs:

70

Date of hearing:

24 June 2021

Place:

Perth

Applicant:

In person

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms G Ellis

Second Respondent:

Submitting appearance, save as to costs

Solicitor for the Respondents:

Sparke Helmore Lawyers

ORDERS

SYG 1094 of 2020

BETWEEN:

WILDAN MARTAK

Applicant

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	JUDGE KENDALL
DATE OF ORDER:	29 JUNE 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

JUDGE KENDALL:

1. The applicant is a citizen of Indonesia. He arrived in Australia on a visitor visa in July 2018 (Court Book (“CB”) 25).

2. On 13 August 2018, the applicant applied for a Student (Temporary) (class TU) Student (subclass 500) visa (CB 1-17). He was enrolled to study a Certificate IV in Business and a Diploma of Leadership and Management.

3. On 24 September 2018, a Ministerial delegate refused to grant the applicant the visa

   
   

   (CB 22-26). The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met cl 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the “Regulations”) as the applicant was not “a genuine temporary entrant”.

4. The applicant applied for review of the delegate’s decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) on 15 October 2018 (CB 27-28).

5. On 30 March 2020, the Tribunal invited the applicant to provide further information regarding his current enrolment status and addressing the genuine temporary entrant criteria (CB 35-36).

6. On 31 March 2020, the applicant provided his responses in the form of a questionnaire and supporting documents (CB 37-52).

7. On 24 April 2020, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision not to grant the applicant the visa (CB 55-66).

8. On 8 May 2020, the applicant applied to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision. The application is brought pursuant to s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the “Act”). To obtain assistance from this Court, the applicant must show that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error.

   TRIBUNAL’S DECISION

9. The Tribunal’s decision is 12 pages long and spans 37 paragraphs. Six pages comprise of Direction No. 69.

10. The Tribunal began by identifying the type of visa under review and summarising the delegate’s decision (at [1]-[3]). The Tribunal noted that it had invited the applicant to provide further information and that the applicant had done so. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had indicated that he consented to the Tribunal determining the matter “on the papers” and without a hearing (at [4]-[6]). On that basis, the Tribunal did not invite the applicant to a hearing and the Tribunal made a decision having regard to all of the materials that were before it (at [7]-[8]).

11. The Tribunal then referred to the relevant Regulations, as follows:

    Genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (cl.500.212)

    11. Clause 500.212 requires as follows:

    The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:

    (a) 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 intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, having regard to:

    (i) the applicant's record of compliance with any condition of a visa previously held by the applicant (if any); and

    (ii) the applicant's stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject; and

    (c) of any other relevant matter.

    Does the applicant intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily?

    12. In considering whether the applicant satisfies cl.500.212(a), the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No.69, 'Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications', made under s.499 of the Act. This Direction, which is attached to this decision, requires the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:

    •the applicant's circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to the applicant's future;

    •he applicant's immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries;

    •if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

    •any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.

    13. The Direction indicates that the factors specified should not be used as a checklist but rather, are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant's circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

12. The Tribunal explained that the issue before it was whether the applicant met cl 500.212 of the Regulations (at [14]). It noted that there was no definition of “genuine” in the Regulations but that the word could mean 'authentic', 'real' or 'true' (according to the word’s ordinary and natural meaning). Further, in order to be regarded as genuine, the applicant must demonstrate an intention to stay in Australia for a limited time only (not permanently) (at [15]).

13. The Tribunal noted that the applicant arrived in Australia in July 2018, he applied for the visa on 13 August 2018, the delegate refused the visa on 24 September 2018 and that the applicant applied for review at the Tribunal on 15 October 2018 (at [16]).

14. The Tribunal also noted that it had had regard to the Departmental file and the documents provided by the applicant (at [17]).

15. The Tribunal explained that the applicant had not provided a genuine temporary entrant statement. However, it was explained that the Tribunal had had regard to the applicant’s brief response in the visa application and noted that the applicant had indicated that he intended to run his own business when he returned to Indonesia and lacked leadership and management experience (at [18]). The applicant had also indicated that he was currently enrolled in a general English course and intended to study a Diploma of Leadership and Management and an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management (which he would complete in June 2022) (at [19]). Finally, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had previously been enrolled in a Certificate IV in Business but, for reasons that were not explained, the applicant had not completed that course (at [20]).

16. The Tribunal determined that the applicant had a poor academic record (noting that he had completed only part of an English language course since arriving in Australia in July 2018). The Tribunal indicated that it was not confident that the applicant would apply himself to his studies in the future. This weighed against granting the applicant the visa (at [21]).

17. It was further noted by the Tribunal that the applicant had not provided any explanation regarding how his proposed courses would improve his future employment prospects.  The Tribunal did not accept that the proposed courses would increase the applicant’s remuneration (at [22]).

18. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had not provided any explanation as to why he had not undertaken studies in Indonesia (at [23]).

19. The Tribunal then explained that the applicant had indicated that his parents live in Indonesia, he had returned home once since arriving in Australia and he “speaks to his family via video call”. The Tribunal did not consider the applicant’s personal or familial ties to be a significant incentive to return to Indonesia (at [24]).

20. The Tribunal determined that there was no evidence that the applicant had “any specific ties to Australia that operate as a strong incentive to remain here” (at [25]) and there was no evidence “in relation to the applicant’s circumstances in his home country relative to others there” (at [26]).  The Tribunal also accepted that the applicant had no military service commitments in his home country and there were no concerns about civil or political unrest (at [27]-[28]).

21. The Tribunal continued:

    29. The evidence in relation to the applicant's economic circumstances is as follows. He has expenses of approximately $20,220 per annum. He was employed in Indonesia in marketing but has provided no evidence to suggest he is employed in Australia. He says he has financial support of an individual in his application for a student visa and he has access to a bank deposit at the Commonwealth Bank. He has not declared any assets in Australia or Indonesia. The evidence in relation to his economic circumstances is minimal and the does not allow a finding that the applicant has a significant economic incentive not to return home.

22. The Tribunal made no adverse findings in relation to the applicant’s previous travel (at [30]).

23. The Tribunal continued:

    31. However, the Tribunal is concerned at the manner in which the applicant applied for a student visa. He had previously arrived a month earlier on a visitor visa, at which time presumably he declared an intention to visit Australia. He very quickly changed his intention and applied for a student visa on 13 August 2018. There is no explanation as to how or why he changed his intention and this indicates that the purpose of his application for a student visa may have been to obtain an ongoing residence in Australia rather than the educational benefit of the visa. This concern is heightened by the fact that the applicant appears to have undertaken only minimal study, and made little academic progress in over 18 months since arriving in Australia. This weighs against the application.

24. The Tribunal concluded that no other matters were relevant to the Tribunal’s consideration of the application (at [32]).

25. The Tribunal determined as follows:

    33.Having regard to all the evidence, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student. The Tribunal expects that a genuine student would be in a position, after 18 months in Australia, to demonstrate a level of academic progress in registered courses. The applicant has not done so.

26. Overall, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant intended to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that he did not meet cl 500.212 of the Regulations and could not be granted the visa (at [34]-[35]).

27. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision to refuse to grant the applicant the visa

    
    

    (at [36]-[37]).

    PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT

28. In his application for judicial review filed on 8 May 2020, the applicant provides two grounds of review, as follows:

    1. The Second Respondents decision was affected by jurisdictional error in that the applicant was denied procedural fairness under s359 of the Migration Act 1958 and failed to take into account relevant considerations.

    Particulars

    a. The applicant applied for a review of his decision. As there was no consistency in processing time of the review applications, there was no way that the applicant knew of likely time frame to have a gearing allocated by the Second Respondent.

    b. The Tribunal failed to provide procedural fairness to the applicant in circumstances where it failed to take into account that the Tribunal failed to take into account the circumstances that led to his emotional state after the refusal of his visa. In the circumstances where the Tribunal failed to have proper regard to his emotional state it acted unreasonably.

    2. The second respondent made jurisdictional error in that it denied the applicant procedural fairness and did not consider the applicants emotional ability and did not give the applicant the opportunity to provide evidence of his sufficient evidence of English language proficiency for the claims that the new course of study had more relevance to his career path.

29. The applicant was given an opportunity to file an amended application, any affidavit evidence and an outline of submissions. No further materials were filed.

30. The materials before the Court thus include the application for judicial review and supporting affidavit filed by the applicant on 8 May 2020, the Court Book (numbering 66 pages and marked as Exhibit 1) and written submissions filed by the Minister on 28 May 2021.

31. The applicant appeared before the Court without legal representation. He was assisted by an Indonesian interpreter. The Court confirmed with him that he had received the Court Book and the Minister’s written submissions.

32. Noting that the applicant was unrepresented, the Court gave him an opportunity to elaborate on, and further particularise, the grounds of review in his application for judicial review and to outline any other concerns he might have with the Tribunal’s decision. This is the standard procedure in this Court following the decision in Bala v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2019] FCA 600 at [7].

33. To assist the applicant, the Court explained that this Court can only turn its attention to the issue of jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. The Court explained that the possible categories of jurisdictional error are not exhaustive and sometimes overlap. For migration decisions of this sort, however, they most commonly include (but are not limited to) the following categories:

    (a)where the decision-maker identifies the wrong issue or asks the wrong question: Craig v State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 (“Craig”) at 198;

    (b)where the decision-maker ignores relevant material: Craig at 198;

    (c)where the decision-maker relies on irrelevant material: Craig at 198;

    (d)where the decision-maker fails to follow mandatory procedures: SAAP v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2005) 228 CLR 294 at [207]-[208];

    (e)where the decision-maker shows actual or apprehended bias: SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80 at [2]; and

    (f)where the decision is illogical, irrational or unreasonable: Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [131]; Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [26]-[28]; Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Singh (2014) 231 FCR 437 at [44].

34. It was also explained that this Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal’s decision or grant the applicant the visa that he seeks. Rather, the role of the Court is restricted to determining if the Tribunal made a material error in arriving at the decision it arrived at: Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272.

35. Although not entirely clear, the applicant initially seemed to indicate that he was not able to “give the Tribunal the evidence it needed” as he “was not (legally) able to study” at the relevant time. The applicant later seemed to suggest that this was not what he meant.  Rather, he seemed to indicate that his migration agent had not properly advised him about what he needed to do. 

36. In relation to the applicant’s concern that he could not study at the relevant time, it is noted that the applicant was, in fact enrolled in a course of study at the time the Tribunal determined his matter (CB 42 and CB 50). If the applicant’s concerns are directed instead at his concern that he should have been given “more time” to present evidence, this is addressed below in relation to ground 2.

37. In relation to the applicant’s assertion that he was not adequately assisted by his migration agent, there is, unfortunately, little that the Court can do to assist him in this regard. At best, the evidence before the Court points to “bad advice” on the part of the applicant’s agent.  To the extent that bad advice was given, it rises no higher than negligent advice. It does not amount to jurisdictional error: Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZLIX [2008] FCAFC 17. Importantly, there is nothing to suggest that the applicant’s migration acted fraudulently or that the agent’s conduct prevented the Tribunal from affording the applicant the procedural fairness obligations owed to him by the Act.

38. Further, any grievance that the applicant has with his migration agent’s conduct should be raised with the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority.

39. This Court cannot assist the applicant with the concerns he has raised in his oral evidence.  The Court will, however, assess his grounds of review as articulated.  Further, noting that the applicant is not represented, the Court will remained astute to the possibility of error in the Tribunal’s decision: as per MZAIB v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392.

    CONSIDERATION

    Ground 1

40. Ground 1 provides:

    1. The Second Respondents decision was affected by jurisdictional error in that the applicant was denied procedural fairness under s359 of the Migration Act 1958 and failed to take into account relevant considerations.

    Particulars

    a. The applicant applied for a review of his decision. As there was no consistency in processing time of the review applications, there was no way that the applicant knew of likely time frame to have a gearing allocated by the Second Respondent.

    b. The Tribunal failed to provide procedural fairness to the applicant in circumstances where it failed to take into account that the Tribunal failed to take into account the circumstances that led to his emotional state after the refusal of his visa. In the circumstances where the Tribunal failed to have proper regard to his emotional state it acted unreasonably.

41. Section 359 of the Act provides:

    (1) In conducting the review, the Tribunal may get any information that it considers relevant. However, if the Tribunal gets such information, the Tribunal must have regard to that information in making the decision on the review.

    (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Tribunal may invite, either orally (including by telephone) or in writing, a person to give information.

    (3) If a written invitation under subsection (2) is given to a person other than the Secretary, the invitation must be given:

    (a) except where paragraph (b) applies—by one of the methods specified in section 379A; or

    (b) if the invitation is given to a person in immigration detention—by a method prescribed for the purposes of giving documents to such a person.

    …

1. Here, the Tribunal sent the applicant an invitation to provide further information pursuant to s 359(2) of the Act. There is no issue that that invitation complied with all of the requirements in ss 359 and 359B of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal was required, by s 359(1) of the Act, to have regard to the information that the applicant provided in response to that invitation.

2. The information that the applicant provided was a questionnaire which he had completed, student identity cards and confirmation of enrolments.

3. In relation to this information, the Court notes as follows:

   (a)the Tribunal clearly had regard to the “Travel” responses in the questionnaire as it repeated them in its decision (at [30]);

   (b)the Tribunal noted the applicant’s study history – which was reflected in his response to the questionnaire (at [19]-[20]);

   (c)the information about the applicant’s family (including how he contacts them) was considered by the Tribunal (at [24]);

   (d)the Tribunal cited verbatim the applicant’s response about what his “future plans” were (at [22]);

   (e)the Tribunal referred to the applicant’s evidence about his expenses in Australia (at [29]); and

   (f)the Tribunal expressly acknowledged the confirmation of enrolments that were provided (at [19]).

4. The only “information” that the applicant provided in response to the s 359 invitation which was not referred to by the Tribunal were the applicant’s student ID cards. Here, the absence of any reference to those documents is not evidence that the Tribunal did not have regard to them. Rather, it can be inferred that they were not relevant or necessary to the Tribunal’s findings as the Tribunal accepted that the applicant was currently studying (at [19]).

5. Accordingly, insofar as ground 1 generally alleges the applicant has been denied procedural fairness because the Tribunal did not have regard to the information provided by him, that argument is rejected. The Tribunal’s decision demonstrates an active regard to all of the relevant information provided.

6. Turning to the particulars of ground 1, at particular (a) the applicant appears argue that, because he was not advised how long it would take to process his application for review, he was denied procedural fairness.

7. It is unclear how what is suggested amounts to a denial of procedural fairness. There is no statutory period within which the Tribunal must complete a review. While the Tribunal must act “quickly”, this is merely aspirational. The failure to act quickly does not, in and of itself, amount to jurisdictional error. There is no statutory timeframe within which the Tribunal must make a decision in relation to a review application and the “circumstances in which delay, of itself, will vitiate proceedings, or a decision, are rare”: NAIS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 77 (at [5] per Gleeson CJ). Those circumstances did not arise here. For example, there was no determination made as to character or credibility based on the applicant’s demeanour that might require recall or recollection.

8. The applicant’s review was processed in accordance with the Tribunal’s standard processes and procedures. The Tribunal is busy and arguably over-worked. Despite that, its members and staff act as quickly as they can with the resources that they have.

9. Further, there is no evidence that the applicant ever made inquiries about the progress of his application. Indeed, he allowed his application to sit “dormant” until he was invited to provide further information on 30 March 2020. The applicant showed no engagement of a sort that might suggested that he was concerned about timeframes or prejudice. Nor has he demonstrated to this Court why “a failure to act quickly” here amounts to jurisdictional error.

10. Particular (a) is dismissed.

11. Particular (b) argues that the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant’s emotional state after the refusal of his visa and acted unreasonably.

12. If the applicant is stating that the Tribunal failed to consider his emotional state after the delegate’s decision to refuse his visa, this is true. The reason for that failure was that the applicant never told the Tribunal about his emotional state. As noted above, no correspondence was received from the applicant until almost two years after he had applied for review by the Tribunal. Nowhere does the material provided mention any mental health concerns. The Tribunal cannot fail to consider what it does not know and it cannot, in the circumstances of this case, be unreasonable for the Tribunal not to have considered something that was never put to it.

13. Further, even if the applicant had made some reference to poor mental health after the delegate’s decision, this would have been irrelevant to the central issue before the Tribunal – i.e., whether the applicant was “a genuine temporary entrant”.

14. If the applicant is stating that it was unfair or unreasonable for the Tribunal not to have considered the impact that a visa refusal would have had on him, again, this was never put to the Tribunal and it also is not relevant to the issue under the view. The consequences of a visa refusal are not probative in relation to whether an applicant intends to stay temporarily.

15. Particular (b) is, accordingly, dismissed.

16. Ground 1 does not identify jurisdictional error.

17. Accordingly, ground 1 is dismissed.

    Ground 2

18. Ground 2 provides:

    The second respondent made jurisdictional error in that it denied the applicant procedural fairness and did not consider the applicants emotional ability and did not give the applicant the opportunity to provide evidence of his sufficient evidence of English language proficiency for the claims that the new course of study had more relevance to his career path.

19. As discussed above in relation to ground 1, the applicant did not provide any evidence relevant to his “emotional ability”.

20. At [22], the Tribunal stated:

    22. The applicant has not provided any explanation as to how the proposed courses will improve his future employment prospects in Indonesia. He says that he intends to return to his home country and “take over my family business for jewellery and develop it.” However he has not explained how the proposed courses are likely to assist him in this goal. It follows that the Tribunal does not consider the proposed courses will increase the remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in his home country or a third country.

21. The applicant argues that he was not given the opportunity to provide evidence about his English language proficiency and the relevance of his study to his career path.

22. Contrary to what is argued, the applicant was given that opportunity. Specifically:

    (a)the delegate expressly stated “…the applicant has not effectively demonstrated reasons to support how the proposed courses in Australia will benefit their future career prospects… The applicant has not adequately demonstrated how overseas study will assist them in attaining their goals…” (CB 25). The applicant was clearly on notice that he had not provided sufficient evidence of how the proposed courses were relevant to his career path and that he needed to provide further evidence in this regard;

    (b)the applicant was advised by the Tribunal on 18 October 2018 to “…provide material or written arguments for us to consider… as soon as possible” (CB 30);

    (c)the invitation to provide information contained a copy of Direction No. 69 which relevantly advised the applicant that the “relevance of the course to the student's past or proposed future employment either in their home country or a third course” was a factor for consideration; and

    (d)the questionnaire the applicant was required to fill out prompted the applicant for details of “how these courses relate to the Main Applicant’s future plans”.

23. It should also be noted that the applicant expressly agreed to the Tribunal determining the matter without a hearing (CB 38). That is, he agreed to the Tribunal determining the matter without providing him with any further “opportunity”. In this regard, the Tribunal noted:

    7. It is appropriate to highlight that a decision maker is not required to make the applicant's case. It is for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act have been met. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative decision making, the relevant facts of the individual case have to be supplied by the applicant, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts.

24. The applicant had ample opportunity to provide to the Tribunal evidence of his English language proficiency and explain how his new course of study would be relevant to his future plans. The applicant did not avail himself of those opportunities.  Nor did he ask for further time within which to do so.

25. Ground 2 is, accordingly, dismissed.

    Otherwise

26. The Court notes that the Tribunal (at [4]) makes reference to an invitation to provide information. It states that the invitation required the applicant to respond by 5 November 2019. The invitation did not actually say this. Given that the invitation was not sent until 30 March 2020, had it done so then an issue under s 359B of the Act may have arisen. However, the invitation clearly stated that a response was (correctly) due by 14 April 2020 (CB 36). The Tribunal’s reference to 5 November 2019 is, on its face, a typographical error or oversight. It does not give rise to jurisdictional error.

27. The Court is otherwise unable to identify any jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision.

    CONCLUSION

28. The application for judicial review filed by the applicant in this Court on 8 May 2020 fails to identify jurisdictional error. The Court is otherwise unable to identify any error.

29. The application is, accordingly, dismissed.

I certify that the preceding seventy (70) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Kendall.

Associate:

Dated:       29 June 2021