MZZYV v Minister for Immigration & Anor
[2014] FCCA 2287
•10 October 2014
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| MZZYV v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2014] FCCA 2287 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal – Application for a Protection (Class XA) visa – procedural fairness afforded to the Applicant at Tribunal hearing – adverse credibility findings made against the Applicant – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36(2)(a), 36(2)(aa), 91R(3) 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees |
| SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152 |
| Applicant: | MZZYV |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | MLG 19 of 2014 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Hartnett |
| Hearing date: | 30 September 2014 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 10 October 2014 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | In Person |
| Counsel for the respondents: | Ms Randall-Smith |
| Solicitors for the respondents: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The Application filed 7 January 2014 is dismissed.
The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $4,300.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 19 of 2014
| MZZYV |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Application for judicial review before the Court was filed 7 January 2014. The Application seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) dated 12 December 2013. The unparticularised grounds of the Application are as follows:-
“1. The Tribunal denied me procedural fairness because they did not give me a fair hearing.
2. The Tribunal failed to properly consider all of my claims.
3. The Tribunal did not given (sic) me an opportunity to comment on an issue that was in dispute.”
At the hearing of the matter the Applicant was not able to give any proper particularisation of these claims. His complaint was that the Tribunal had made adverse credibility findings against him, and that the Tribunal had not accepted the documentation provided to it by him.
The First Respondent sought that the application be dismissed and costs follow the event. The First Respondent argued that no jurisdictional error attended the decision of the Tribunal dated 12 December 2013. The First Respondent relied upon the Response filed by it on 15 January 2014 seeking dismissal of the application, the contents of the Court Book filed 11 July 2014 which is evidence in the proceedings before me, and the First Respondent’s Contentions of Fact and Law filed 16 September 2014.
By Orders of Registrar Allaway on 2 April 2014, the Applicant was given the opportunity to file and serve any amended application, which he did not do, but was also required by 12 August 2014 to file and serve written submissions. No written submissions were filed by the Applicant. He was however given the opportunity to make oral submissions at the hearing. He was assisted by an interpreter in the Pashto language, and I note that in his application for a Protection (Class XA) visa, the Applicant claimed to speak, read and write in the Pushtu, Urdu, and English languages.
The Tribunal’s decision dated 12 December 2013 (‘the Decision Record’) affirmed a determination by a delegate of the First Respondent (‘the delegate’) dated 5 August 2013 to refuse to grant the Applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa (‘protection visa’).
History
The Applicant is a citizen of Pakistan. He is a Sunni Muslim of Pashtun ethnicity. His date of birth is 11 April 1988 and he is now aged 26 years. He is married. He arrived in Australia, on a passport issued in Pakistan, on 15 April 2012 as the holder of a Student (Class TU) (Higher Education Sector) Subclass 573 visa (‘student visa’). This student visa was issued in Islamabad on 2 April 2012 and remained valid until 30 September 2013. The issuing of this student visa followed an earlier application by the Applicant in Islamabad for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa with such application being made on 13 December 2011.
On 13 February 2013, the Applicant lodged an application for a protection visa. He had arrived in Australia some 10 months earlier. Following the delegate not being satisfied that the Applicant had a profile that would engender a risk of harm in Pakistan, and the delegate having concerns regarding the credibility of the Applicant’s claim for protection (leaving the delegate to conclude that the Applicant’s fear of persecution, as defined under the Refugees Convention,[1] was not well-founded, nor that Australia had protection obligations to the Applicant under ss.36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’)), the Applicant applied for review of the decision of the delegate to the Tribunal on 12 August 2013.
[1] 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
The Tribunal, in letter of 2 October 2013, invited the Applicant to appear before it to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review. The Tribunal hearing date was 24 October 2013 at 1.00pm. The Tribunal provided an interpreter in the Pashto language and the Applicant was assisted at the hearing by his migration agent.
The Tribunal noted, in paragraph 21, of its Decision Record dated 12 December 2013 that the Applicant presented his claims in his protection visa application on 16 January 2013; in an interview with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (as it then was) (‘the Department’) he attended on 15 May 2013; and at his Tribunal hearing on 24 October 2013. The Tribunal set out, at paragraph 21 of the Decision Record, the statement of claims made by the Applicant attached to his protection visa application which were as follows:-
“1. I was born on 11 April 1988 in Timergara, District Lower Dir, Malakand Division, KPK, Pakistan. I am of Pashtun ethnicity and I am a Sunni Muslim.
2. While I was growing up, my father spent half of each year living and working in Kuwait. My father has never been politically active but because he is considered an elder within our community he shares ideas to those of Jumat-e-Islami. While I was growing up, my mother was a house wife. She was never politically active,
3. I have three brothers and four sisters and I grew up in a village called Malakand near to Timergara. My oldest brother, Abdur Rahim is now living in Kuwait where he works as a labourer. My other siblings still live in Pakistan.
Education
4. I completed my first 10 years of education at Alfarooq Public School, Timregara in 2004.
5. After I finished my higher school certificate at Alfarooq Public School, I started studying at the Government Degree College, Timregara in the Pre-Medical Group and in 2006 I completed my secondary school certificate.
6. During my studies at the Government Degree College, I became involved with a student group of the Awami National Party (ANP). I liked the ideas of the ANP especially because they believe that women should have equal rights. I was not really interested in politics, but I liked the ideas of the ANP and became interested in the group because of this.
7. While I was at college, I was trying to focus on my studies so I did not become an active member of the ANP at this time.
8. While I was at the Government Degree College, I was also working part time as a System Administrator at a franchise of Mobillink in my area.
9. After I finished my studies at the Government Degree College, I joined the ANP. This would have been in late 2006, just before I gained admission to university.
10. In January 2007, I started my studies towards Bachelor of Information Technology at the University of Peshawar. I moved to Peshawar and lived on the university campus while I was studying.
2007 - I become actively involved in the ANP
11. In 2007 I became move involved with the ANP and became an Active Member.
12. I would attend meetings and protests calling for equal rights and education for women. At this time, Jumat-e-Islami was holding protests against co-education and we were actively opposing these protests.
13. I was also involved in talking to new students on campus about the ANP and explaining to them what our ideals are.
Late 2007 — I am involved in preparations for the election with the ANP
14. In late 2007, an election was called and scheduled to take place in early 2008. Once the election was called, I became involved in providing more support for the ANP and our leaders in different areas in our region.
15. I would accompany leaders to visit Mosques in different places when I was not at university. The leaders would address people after they had been to prayers at the mosque, often on Fridays. I would go with them to provide support and put up posters, hand out leaflets and talk to people about the ANP. Usually we would go in groups of around 5 to 10 people.
16. During the election campaign, leaders from the ANP would also address the public in other public places such as parks and I would also accompany them to these events.
17. It was difficult to get people to listen to our ideas and often, people would leave the mosque or the Park and without taking any notice of what our leaders were saying. Because of this, we would often have to go back to villages to try again to convince people of what we were saying.
18. As people the villages became aware that I was involved in the ANP, they passed on his information to groups like the Taliban and Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Moharnmadi (the “Black Turbans”) who were opposed to the ANP and our ideals.
19. My father started to receive warnings and threats from other elders about my activities. They told him that I was following the wrong path and that he should stop me.
20. Around this time, my father told me that I should be focused on my studies and not be involved in these groups.
21. After the election was held, the ANP defeated other groups for the first time. The Taliban became more angry about this and leaders of the ANP were targeted.
Early 2009 — Conflict breaks out in our area
22. By 2009, the Taliban had become a lot more powerful in Lower Dir. Many young men from the area who were unemployed joined the Taliban so the group became more and more active and powerful.
23. The Taliban started attacking the security forces and civilians and recruiting more and more people and as a result, security forces entered the area to attempt to stop them. War broke out and my family was forced to relocate to Peshawar for safety. We became registered as internally displaced people with UNHCR. We did not live in a refugee camp during this time but we were registered with UNHCR.
24. After a few months, my family was able to return home. The wax was continuing but we were able to return to our village because it was relatively safe.
25. I was still studying at University so I continued to live in Peshawar. I did not visit my family very often because I was becoming increasingly frightened about what might happen to me in the village. People in the area were aware of my activities in the ANP and I knew that this would make me a target,
26. In February 2011, I completed my Bachelor of Information Technology, During February 2011, I also sat the IELTS test to assess my English skills, At this time,. I just wanted to assess how good my English communication skills were so that I could improve on it if necessary.
April 2010 -I- start an internship at the Computerisation & Network Enhancement Programme (CNEP)
27. In my final semester of University, we were required to gain some practical experience. I started an internship at the CNEP.
28. I was a part-time Network Intern, working as a network engineer. This internship helped me to prepare my project to complete the final semester of my degree.
29. Throughout my internship, I continued to be involved with the ANP on the university campus.
30. After I completed my internship, I sat my final exams at university and then I started looking for a job. During this time, I remained in Peshawar and only returned home for a couple of days at a time.
March 2011 — I start working at Dir Rural Development Organisation
31. In early 2011, I applied for a position with the Dir Rural Development Organisation (DRDO), a project of the World Food Program (WFP) as a System Administrator. DRDO was located in Dir Upper District, not far from my village.
32. My role involved working on projects relating to women's rights and despite being a system administrator and being responsible for computer systems, I also became involved in projects relating to women's education.
33. Through this role, I would travel to different areas to assist with food distribution and to talk to people about women's rights and education. Often, when we were distributing food, we would talk to people about equality and the need for women to access education and to become part of the workforce.
34. In April 2011, while I was working with DRDO, I was married to Safora Zaib. Safora is the sister of a friend of mine and our families arranged that we would marry.
35. Around this time, Tahreek Taliban Maidan (TTM) was becoming more powerful in the area. This group was also connected with the Black Turbans, led by a man called Shabar and therefore, they were very powerful.
36. This group considered the work of non government organisations such as DRDO to be un-Islamic and to be supported by western Countries like the United States. They think that anyone involved in these types of organisations is not a true Muslim.
37. As this group became more powerful and more people became involved, they also became aware that I was employed by DRDO.
38. In around July or August 2011, I started to receive threats from the Taliban. One day I went to work and the Managing Director of DRDO asked to speak to me because he had received threats mentioning my name. He said that they had put up posters outside the building saying that they were targeting me.
39. Not long after I had received the first threat, I received a second threat. This time, they called the office and spoke with the Managing Director. He said that they told him that if they found me they would kill me.
40. On one occasion I went to the police to ask for them to help to protect me. They told me that they did not have any power to protect me from these groups because they are too powerful and even the army cannot stop them.
41. My father told me that I needed to go somewhere safe and that he would try to work out a way that I could go to Kuwait or Saudi Arabia so that I could leave Pakistan. He took my passport and talked to an agent about arranging a visa for me. We soon discovered that as a Pakistani, I would not be eligible for a visa to Kuwait so my father asked the agent to arrange a visa for me to Saudi Arabia.
42. Around this time, my uncle was asked about my whereabouts. He worked as a shopkeeper in our village and people from the TTM asked him about where I lived, not knowing that he was a relative of mine By this time, everyone in the village knew who the TTM were and when they were in the village.
43. I decided to that I needed to relocate straight away so I talked to my family about going to Karachi. After I had talked to my family, I talked to my Managing Director about moving to Karachi so that I could get away from these threats. I knew that Peshawar and Islamabad were still very close to the village and that I would still be at risk there.
44. My Managing Director agreed that I could take one month of leave and go to Karachi to hide.
September 2011 — 1 relocate to Karachi
45. In September 2011, I travelled to Karachi by bus.
46. I stayed with my sister Fahmida and her husband in a part of Karachi called Lain.
47. I started to look for a job in Karachi and I would often spend time with my brother in law at his shop. From spending time at my brother in law's shop, I met people from the local area and started talking to some people who I soon discovered were also involved in the ANP.
48. I came to know the people in the ANP and I started attending meetings, visiting members at their homes, going to their offices and becoming involved in the group again.
49. In Karachi I soon realised that the ANP and the opposition movement, Mutahida Quami Movement (MQM), were violently targeting one another. MQM are a political group that wants to have power and does not want ANP to operate.
50. I knew that if I stayed there, I would be targeted by the MQM because of my involvement in the ANP.
51. While I was in Karachi, I would talk to my father on the telephone and he told me that there were still people searching for me in the village and this was being reported back to him from other people in the village.
52. I was still considering my options and while I was in Karachi, I talked to some friends about my father's idea that I could flee to Saudi Arabia. They warned me not to go because I would only have a short term visa and after that time has passed, I would be detained and then deported to Pakistan.
53. In around October 2011, I returned to Peshawar. I was still not sure what to do.
October 2011 — 1 apply for a visa to Australia
54. When I returned to Peshawar, I cancelled my visa application to Saudi Arabia and I made my first application for a student visa to Australia.
55. At this time, I was still employed by DRDO and I was working from home, online so that I did not have to go into the office.
56. During this time, my father was receiving threats about me from the other elders in the village who had received messages from the Taliban.
57. In December 2011, my application for a visa was refused because I did not show evidence of sufficient funds.
58. In January 2012, I again applied for a Student Visa to Australia.
59. At this time, I moved to Peshawar with my wife because it was too dangerous for me to stay in the village and I was hopeful that my second visa application would be approved. I stayed in an apartment in the city and only had contact with my father. No one else knew that we were there. I spent most of the time in the apartment and would only go out when my father needed me to take documents to help with my visa application.
60. In April 2012, I was granted a visa to Australia. On 14 April 2012, I left Pakistan and flew to Australia via Doha. I arrived in Australia on 15 April 2012.
Since I left Pakistan
61. When I left Pakistan no one knew that I had left for around one month. Eventually people heard that I had left and that I was in Australia.
62. My father continues to receive threats about me because of my activities and because I have come to Australia. The Taliban believe that Australia is supporting NGOs and the fact that I have come to Australia means that I will be in even more danger if I return.
Fear of return
63. If I return to Pakistan I am frightened that I will be targeted by the Taliban and killed.
64. I have received so many warnings and threats from them that I think the only option for them will be to kill me.
65. It is not possible for the police or the Army in Pakistan to protect me. I went to the Police once but they told me that they have no control over these groups.
66. There is no where else in Pakistan that I could move to that would be safe. I have already tried to find safety in Karachi, Peshawar and Islamabad but it is not safe for me in any of these places.”
The Tribunal’s decision
The Tribunal specifically set out that the primary issue in its review of the delegate’s decision of 5 August 2013 was whether there was a real chance that if the Applicant returned to Pakistan, the Applicant would be persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugee’s Convention[2] for the purposes of s.36(2)(a) of the Act and, if not, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his being removed from Australia to Pakistan there was a real risk that the Applicant would suffer significant harm for the purpose of s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the decision of the delegate under review should be affirmed. It did so because it made a significant number of adverse credibility findings against the Applicant. In its Decision Record, it set out the various inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence throughout his protection visa application process and between his evidence and independent country information that was before it.
[2] 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
As set out in the First Respondent’s Contentions of Fact and Law filed 16 September 2014 and in paragraph 9 therein, the Tribunal did not accept that:-
“9.1. The applicant was involved in·or (sic) became a member of the ANP. This was in part, based on an inconsistency between the applicant's account that he became involved with the student group of the Azad Pukhtoon Student Federation (APkSF) (called the ANP) in late 2006 and ICI indicating that the group was not formed until February 2009. The Tribunal also had concerns about a variety of documents submitted by the applicant relating to his membership [; or that]
9.2. The applicant was involved in preparations for the elections to be held in 2008 with the ANP. The Tribunal noted the discrepancy between the date the applicant said the elections were held and independent country information indicating that it was held some 5 months later. It rejected the applicant's explanation that his memory had been affected by the delegate's rejection of his application [; or that]
9.3. People passed on the applicant's information to groups like the Taliban and Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-Mohammadi or that the applicant's father started receiving threats relating to the applicant's political activities. Nor did it accept his claim that was threatened many times, directly or indirectly because of his political affiliations.”
The delegate had earlier found the supporting evidence provided to it by the Applicant at interview, including an Awami National Party (‘ANP’) membership card and a letter of reference from the Dir Rural Development Organisation (‘DRDO’), to be mainly copies. The delegate noted that country information attests to a range of fraudulent documents being easily obtained in Pakistan. The delegate submitted these two documents to the Document Examination Unit on 15 May 2013. The report was inconclusive but showed evidence of anomalies suggesting that both documents were fraudulent. The ANP membership card was in excellent condition despite being purportedly issued in 2006. The DRDO reference contained a stamp which was obviously cut and pasted. The delegate considered this information cast considerable doubt on the authenticity of all the documents submitted by the Applicant and undermined the whole basis of the Applicant’s claims. Further, in the Applicant’s student visa application, there was no mention of the DRDO. There was no mention of political interest, student involvement or ANP membership in the student visa application.
Country information confirmed the ANP is targeted by the Taliban. The delegate found there was no credible evidence before him to indicate any active political interest or involvement in the ANP by the Applicant.
The Tribunal also did not accept the Applicant was involved in the ANP and rejected his claim that he continued to support the ANP or ANP student wing since coming to Australia, or that he was in regular contact with the university President and local President.
The Tribunal found the Applicant sent money to the ANP from Australia for the sole purpose of strengthening his refugee claims and, accordingly, disregarded the conduct for the purposes of s.36(2)(a) of the Act pursuant to s.91R(3) of the Act.
The Tribunal also did not accept that the Applicant worked at DRDO, based on a number of discrepancies in the Applicant’s evidence. It placed little weight on a letter the Applicant submitted purportedly from the managing director of DRDO as the Tribunal did not accept that the Applicant worked at DRDO, and did not accept that in around July or August 2011 he started to receive threats from the Taliban.
The Tribunal did not accept that the Applicant faced a real chance of persecution now, or in the reasonably foreseeable future, for reasons of an imputed political opinion or his membership of a particular social group, or any other Refugee Convention[3] reason based on his alleged employment with the DRDO. It did not accept that the Taliban, or any other extremist group, would have an interest in the Applicant such that they would be aware he had gone to Australia. Nor did it accept that he faced persecution arising out of his liberal Muslim religious beliefs and his Pashtun ethnicity.
[3] 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
The Tribunal considered the Applicant’s claims in the context of the complementary protection regime in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. It considered, amongst other things, the impact of the Applicant’s political donations on his profile and found that he did not meet the criteria in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act. Paragraphs 14 to 18 herein are set out in the First Respondent’s Submissions and are an accurate statement of the Tribunal’s findings.
Applicant’s health
At the commencement of the hearing, the Applicant’s adviser alerted the Tribunal to the fact the Applicant had advised her that he had been unwell and had a head cold and, although he was feeling okay, he was having a bit of trouble hearing. When the Tribunal questioned the Applicant as to whether he was feeling well enough to continue with the hearing, he claimed that he was okay and could hear properly. The Tribunal instructed the Applicant if he was having trouble hearing or was feeling unwell to advise it. The Applicant confirmed he was able to participate in the hearing. The Tribunal refers to this in paragraph 48 of the Decision Record.
Following the Tribunal hearing, the Applicant and his adviser provided information to the Tribunal regarding the Applicant’s mental health. That is set out in paragraph 49 of the Decision Record. The Applicant provided three letters from the Coburg Family Medical Centre which post-dated the hearing. All went to a mental illness suffered by the Applicant.
The Tribunal noted that prior to the hearing, there was no suggestion made that the Applicant was suffering any health problems apart from a head cold which he had had for a few days before the hearing. The Applicant also referred in the hearing to having memory problems due to stress as a result of the rejection of his protection visa application by the delegate in addition to other stresses.
The Tribunal considered the letters submitted by the Applicant and was not satisfied, given the limited information provided in such documents regarding the Applicant’s condition and the very few consultations on which the diagnosis was based, that the Applicant had any mental health issues. The Tribunal went on to say at paragraph 49 of the Decision Record, however, that:-
“…even if the Tribunal accepts the applicant may be suffering from depression and anxiety, based on the Tribunal’s findings above, it does not accept that his condition is associated to any past threats made against him in Pakistan. The Tribunal also does not accept on the basis of the very limited information provided in the letters from the applicant’s doctor and psychologist that the applicant’s mental health issues had any impact on his ability to give evidence or that it manifests itself in any memory problems.”
Consideration
The application for judicial review is without merit. The Court finds the Tribunal’s decision is not attended by jurisdictional error. The lack of meaningful particulars in the Application itself is further a ground for dismissal of the application. The Applicant was afforded procedural fairness by the Tribunal. He was invited to attend a hearing and did so, appearing with the assistance of an interpreter and his migration agent. He was afforded the opportunity to give evidence and present his arguments. The Tribunal actively turned its mind to whether or not the Applicant was mentally and physically well enough to participate in the hearing and concluded that he was.
The Tribunal put to the Applicant in the hearing independent country information which was inconsistent with the claims of the Applicant and sought the Applicant’s response. The Tribunal found some of the Applicant’s evidence to be implausible and did not accept almost the totality of matters put before it by the Applicant. The Tribunal put other matters to the Applicant that it had difficulty accepting, including that set out in paragraph 38 of the Decision Record, when the Tribunal asked the Applicant about his past employment as stated in the student visa application that he lodged at a point earlier in time, and that statement of work history’s inconsistency with that claimed upon the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal set out in its reasons those matters which it found to be “far‑fetched” and such matters were put to the Applicant.
In paragraph 47 of the Decision Record, the Tribunal noted:-
“The Tribunal notes the applicant’s adviser submitted in the written submission received on 18 October 2013, prior to the hearing, that the applicant faces persecution on account of his religion, namely his liberal Muslim religious beliefs which do not accord with the extreme religious beliefs held by the Taliban, and his Pashtun ethnicity. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has not raised any fears in relation to his religion or his ethnicity in his statutory declaration attached to his protection visa application or in his recent statutory declaration submitted to the Tribunal. Nor did the applicant raise in the hearing, when asked if there were any other reasons why he fears returning to Pakistan apart from his ANP political opinion and his employment with DRDO, that he has any fears in relation to his religious beliefs or his Pashtun ethnicity. Instead, he confirmed that these were the only reasons that make him scared of returning to Pakistan. Based on the applicant’s evidence in the hearing, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant has a subjective fear of harm based on his religion or his ethnicity.”
The issues which were before the delegate, such decision being provided by the Applicant to the Tribunal, were the same as those issues requiring determination by the Tribunal, being issues as to the Applicant’s credibility. The Applicant was, as submitted by counsel for the First Respondent, given a real and meaningful opportunity to be heard in relation to the determinative issues on the review.[4]
[4] SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152.
The findings made by the Tribunal were open on the evidence before it. The Tribunal rejected each of the Applicant’s claims based on its significant adverse credibility findings. Credibility findings are findings for the Tribunal and are not for this Court.
The application is dismissed, and costs will follow the event.
I certify that the preceding twenty-eight (28) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Hartnett
Associate:
Date: 10 October 2014
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
-
Immigration
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
0