MZZZA v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 421

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MZZZA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 421

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Judicial review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – application for a Protection (Class XA) visa – consideration of internal relocation principle – poor mental health of Applicant – reasonableness of relocation in respect of other claims – no jurisdictional error found – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.36(2B)(a)

MZYQU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2012) 206 FCR 191
MZYXP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2013] FCA 1352
SZATV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship(2007) 233 CLR 18

SZMCD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2009) 174 FCR 415
1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees

Applicant: MZZZA

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: MLG 45 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Hartnett

Hearing date: 1 October 2014

Date of Last Submission: 12 November 2014

Delivered at: Melbourne

Delivered on: 26 February 2015

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Gilbert

Solicitors for the Applicant: Clothier Anderson & Associates

Counsel for the respondents: Mr Wood

Solicitors for the respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The application is dismissed.

2. The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $7,325.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 45 of 2014

MZZZA

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The Applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) made on 18 December 2013. That decision affirmed an earlier decision made by a delegate of the First Respondent to refuse to grant the Applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa (‘the protection visa’) under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Migration Act’).

2. The Tribunal was satisfied that the Applicant, a Pakistani national, faced a real chance of persecution on the ground of imputed political opinion in his home area, the Swat Valley in the North West of the country. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the Applicant faced a real chance of persecution or significant harm in Islamabad or Rawalpindi, and the Tribunal was satisfied that it would be reasonable for the Applicant to relocate to one of those cities.

3. The Applicant contended, in his Amended Application for Judicial Review filed on 27 August 2014, that the Tribunal committed two jurisdictional errors (requiring the setting aside or quashing of the decision and that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal, differently constituted, for a determination according to law) in connection with its application of the “internal relocation principle” to the following effect:-

   a)ground 1: the Tribunal asked itself the wrong question by asking whether the Applicant would face “serious harm” in Islamabad or Rawalpindi, by assessing the question of relocation “from the perspective of a fear of harm”, and by applying “concepts in refugee law, such as remoteness of harm or targeting” when assessing the reasonabless of relocation. The Tribunal failed to consider whether “something less than serious harm or harm could be sufficient to make it unreasonable for the applicant to relocate”; and

   b)ground 2: the Tribunal failed to deal with an integer of the Applicant’s claim with respect to relocation within Pakistan, being the Applicant’s mental health.

4. The First Respondent submits no jurisdictional error attends the decision of the Tribunal and seeks (in the Response filed on 29 January 2014) that the application be dismissed and that costs follow the event.

5. I have before me evidence as contained in the Court Book filed by the First Respondent on 10 July 2014; the Supplementary Court Book filed on 19 September 2014, the submissions of the parties, together with the First Respondent’s Supplementary Submissions filed on 22 October 2014 and the Applicant’s reply thereto.

History

1. The Applicant is a 22 year old single male, a citizen of Pakistan. He arrived in Australia on 22 May 2012 as the holder of a student visa. On 19 October 2012, he applied for a protection visa. As set out in the Applicant’s Contentions of Fact and Law filed on 28 August 2014, his claim was based on the following:-

   a)his actual and imputed political opinion;

   b)his Pashtun ethnicity;

   c)his liberal Muslim religious beliefs; and

   d)his membership of a particular social group, namely “people who are wealthy and are able to afford a bribe and/or ransom”, “a person considered a spy for the West and/or a traitor against the country and/or religion” and as a “failed asylum seeker”.

Tribunal decision

1. The Tribunal’s findings (before the Tribunal turned to a consideration of relocation within Pakistan) are accurately summarised by the First Respondent. I adopt that summary here:-

   a)the Tribunal had significant concerns about the Applicant’s credibility. The Tribunal thought certain of the Applicant’s claims were implausible. The Tribunal was also unsatisfied as to the genuineness of certain documents provided by the Applicant in support of his claims. Accordingly, and in light of relevant country information, the Tribunal did not accept the Applicant’s claim to have been abducted and held captive by the Taliban in May 2009. Further, having regard to various credibility concerns, the Tribunal did not accept the Applicant’s claim to have been involved in a “Peace Committee” opposed to the Taliban;

   b)however, the Tribunal was prepared to accept that the Applicant’s father had been a member of the “Peace Committee”, and that his father had received threats from the Taliban in 2010 and 2011 as a consequence. Moreover, the Tribunal accepted that there was a real chance that the Applicant would be imputed with an anti-Taliban political opinion as a consequence of his relationship with his father. Finally, the Tribunal accepted country information that indicated that Pakistani authorities would not be able to provide sufficient protection to the Applicant in the Swat Valley. On this basis, the Tribunal found that the Applicant “faces a real chance of persecution for reasons of his political opinion if he returns to his home in Koza Bandai village or elsewhere in the Swat region, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future”.[1]

   [1] Outline of Submissions filed by the First Respondent on 22 September 2014 at [6] and [7].

2. The Tribunal also accepted that the State of Pakistan could not meet the level of protection necessary for the Applicant in the Swat region now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.[2]

   [2] The Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Record dated 18 December 2013 at [40].

3. Under the heading “Relocation” in its Decision Record dated 18 December 2013 (‘the Decision Record’), the Tribunal commenced its consideration of the Applicant’s ability to relocate within Pakistan by reference to the principle authority in respect of the internal relocation principle, the High Court decision in SZATV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship(2007) 233 CLR 18. The Tribunal commenced:-

   “41. In SZATV v MIAC (2007) 233 CLR 18 the High Court endorsed the proposition that a person will not be excluded from refugee status merely because he or she could have sought refuge in another part of the same country, if under all the circumstances it would not be reasonable to expect him or her to do so. The Court further held at [24] that what is reasonable, in the sense of practicable, must depend on the particular circumstances of the applicant and the impact upon that person of relocating within their country.”

4. The Tribunal then continued:-

   “42. Having accepted that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Koza Bandai village and the Swat region, the Tribunal must consider whether the well-founded fear of persecution extends to the country as [a] whole, and if not, whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to a part of Pakistan where he does not have a well-founded fear of persecution. It has been submitted on the applicant’s behalf that relocation would not be effective to avoid the serious and significant harm feared by the applicant, nor would it be reasonable for him to relocate in his particular circumstances.

   43. The applicant is a twenty year old man from Koza Bandai, Swat of Sunni religion and Pashtun ethnicity. He is single and his family remain living in Swat Valley, although he has given evidence that they travelled earlier this year to Bangladesh for three months. He states in his visa application that he speaks, reads and writes Urdu and English and also speaks and reads Pashto. As noted above, the Tribunal has accepted his evidence that he completed his secondary education at Muslim Public School, Swat in 2011 and that his father is a wealthy and influential man in his local area and the owner and operator of a brick factory operating in Koza Bandai, Swat.

   44. The Tribunal has accepted the applicant’s father is a member of the Koza Bandai peace committee who received death threats in 2010 and 2011. The Tribunal has accepted that the applicant is a member [of] his father’s family and that as such he may be imputed with an anti-Taliban political opinion as a result. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has been in Australia for approximately eighteen months, having arrived on a student visa in May 2012.

   45. As discussed with the applicant at hearing, the Pakistan Constitution states that “[e]very citizen shall have the right to remain in and, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest, enter and move freely throughout Pakistan and to reside and settle in any part thereof.” The Tribunal finds that the applicant is able as a matter of law to relocate within Pakistan away from conflict areas, including his home area of Koza Bandai or the wider Swat district.

   46. At hearing the Tribunal discussed with the applicant the possibility that he could safely relocate to a city such as Islamabad or Rawalpindi which is reported to experience less sectarian attacks than other major cities in Pakistan. The applicant agreed that the Constitution permitted him to do so, but said that racism was everywhere in Pakistan and that he will not feel safe anywhere, even in Islamabad. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it seemed unlikely that he had a profile in Swat such as would cause the Taliban to pursue him outside of that area. The applicant stated that the Taliban could find him anywhere in Pakistan and that the Swati Taliban had spread throughout Pakistan and knew him very well. It is submitted by the applicant’s representative that the applicant’s own profile, together with the profile of his father and the specific targeting he has received from the Taliban in the past mean that it is not safe for him to relocate safely anywhere within Pakistan. Given the Tribunal’s findings above, the Tribunal rejects the assertion that the applicant has been personally targeted in the past nor does it accept that his profile is such that the Taliban to whom he may be known in Swat would be motivated to pursue him outside of the Swat region. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has not accepted the applicant’s claims to have been abducted by the Taliban in 2009.”

5. The findings of the Tribunal which followed (as to the issue of internal relocation) are accurately set out in the First Respondent’s Outline of Submissions (paragraphs 10 and 11) and are adopted here. They are:-

   a)the Tribunal did not accept that the Applicant faces a real chance of serious harm in Islamabad or Rawalpindi, either on the basis of his actual or imputed political opinion opposing the Taliban, his past involvement with the peace committee, his relationship to his father and/or his father’s membership of the Peace Committee, his moderate Sunni Muslim beliefs, his Pashtun ethnicity, his status as a member of his father’s family, a person from a wealthy family who is able to pay a bribe and/or ransom or a failed asylum seeker, a person considered a spy from the west and/or a traitor against their country and/or religion”. Thus, in summary, the Tribunal concluded that “[o]n the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept there to be a real chance that the applicant would face serious harm if he relocates to Islamabad or Rawalpindi for any of the reasons claimed”.[3] (The Tribunal came to the same conclusion with respect to the risk of significant harm in the context of s.36(2B)(a) of the Migration Act as relevant to the alternative complementary protection criterion); and

   b)in coming to that conclusion on the first issue, the Tribunal noted that “[it] has been submitted on the applicant’s behalf that relocation [to Islamabad or Rawalpindi] would not be effective to avoid the serious and significant harm feared by the applicant”.[4] The Tribunal disagreed with that submission. In paragraphs [46] to [54] of its Decision Record, the Tribunal considered the range of claims that the Applicant had made in support of his claim to be a refugee in the context of the proposed places of relocation. For example, the Tribunal considered the Applicant’s claim that “the Taliban could find him anywhere in Pakistan”, that the Applicant’s “profile” and that of his father’s, and the “specific targeting he [had] received from the Taliban in the past” meant that he would not be safe from the Taliban anywhere in Pakistan, and that the Taliban would “pursue” him to Islamabad or Rawalpindi. The Tribunal did not accept those claims.

   [3] The Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Record dated 18 December 2013 at [54].

   [4] The Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Record dated 18 December 2013 at [42].

6. On a fair reading of the Decision Record it is clear the Tribunal considered those matters required to be considered by it including as set out in SZATV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship(2007) 233 CLR 18, and in correct order. The Tribunal considered whether the Applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in a place outside of the Swat Valley (such as Islamabad or Rawalpindi). It determined he did not. Having made that finding, the Tribunal then approached the next task required of it, and as stated by it, namely it then became “necessary to consider whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to Islamabad or Rawalpindi in the particular circumstances of the applicant”.[5] This included a consideration by the Tribunal of the impact upon the Applicant of any proposed relocation. In determining whether it was reasonable for the Applicant to relocate within the country, the Tribunal was aware that it’s task depended on the “the framework set by the particular objections raised to relocation”.[6] As Kenny J explained in MZYXP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, it is “not correct to say ... that the Tribunal’s inquiry [is] as to the “objective impact of the possible relocation … [r]ather, the inquiry, though objective, [is] circumscribed by the case made by the appellant with respect to the relocation issue”.[7]

   [5] The Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Record dated 18 December 2013 at [54].

   [6] SZMCD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2009) 174 FCR 415 at [123].

   [7] [2013] FCA 1352 at [61].

7. The Applicant argued that the Tribunal fell into error by applying the same test in the relocation section of its Decision Record as it did in its substantive assessment for the Swat Valley. In particular, the Tribunal asked itself whether the Applicant would face “serious harm” in Islamabad or Rawalpindi, by assessing the question of relocation “from the perspective of a fear of harm” and by applying “concepts in refugee law, such as remoteness of harm or targeting”. The Tribunal did consider whether the Applicant would have a well-founded fear of persecution on a Convention ground in Islamabad or Rawalpindi,[8] and applied “concepts in refugee law” in doing so. The Tribunal was however required to consider that issue. It was the first of two issues that the Tribunal was required to consider in the relocation context. Having done so, the Tribunal was then required to consider the second issue: was it “reasonable” (in the sense of practicable) for the Applicant to relocate to Islamabad or Rawalpindi. However, as noted above, the Tribunal was only required to consider that question by reference to the particular objections made by the Applicant to relocation. As submitted by Counsel for the First Respondent, I find the Tribunal did not commit the error made in MZYQU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2012) 206 FCR 191 of improperly confining its attention to the risk of the Applicant suffering “serious harm” for a Convention reason.[9]

   [8] 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

   [9] 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

8. The Tribunal performed the analysis required of it. It considered each “objection” to relocation raised by the Applicant. The Applicant firstly contended that the Tribunal did not consider the objection based on his mental health, which was the subject of ground 2 of the Amended Application. I reject that assertion for the reasons below.

9. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had objected to relocation on the basis that his “young age and poor mental health make such relocation away from his family unreasonable and not culturally acceptable”.[10]  The Tribunal made a finding that the Applicant could obtain appropriate medical treatment and would be assisted in that regard by his wealthy family. The complaint about delay and the other matters is subsumed in that finding.

   [10] The Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Record dated 18 December 2013 at [55].

10. Counsel for the Applicant put that the Tribunal was made aware that the efficacy of the Applicant’s medication was not settled; he required ongoing therapy; and that he would have to wait three to four months to see a psychiatrist in Pakistan. The Tribunal dealt with that as described above. Counsel further put that, in essence, the claim of the Applicant, that his mental condition, whatever its cause, would deteriorate if he were to return to Pakistan, was not dealt with. It should have been, it was argued, as it was clearly relevant to the question of reasonabless for the Applicant to relocate.

11. The Tribunal dealt with the Applicant’s age and separation from his family, and the claimed adverse impact of those matters upon his mental health as stated in submissions made on his behalf. The Tribunal rejected the premise on which the opinion was based in that it found the Applicant’s young age and separation from his family were practical realities already existent by virtue of his time in Australia.

12. The Tribunal then considered the medical evidence in respect of the Applicant’s mental health and its suggested deterioration. The Tribunal stated, at paragraphs 56 to 58 of its Decision Record, the following:-

    “56. The medical evidence before the Tribunal comprises prescriptions for mirtazapine and venlafaxine dated September 2013 and reports from Dr Colin Scott, psychiatrist and Daniel Chable, psychologist. Both Dr Scott and Mr Chable indicate in their reports that they have been treating the applicant since September 2013. There is also a GP mental health plan dated 11 September 2013 before the Tribunal completed by Dr Han, which refers to his diagnosis of PTSD and major depression and states the goals of that plan are to reduce stress and maintain normal or near normal function and improve his mood.

    57. A medical report from Dr Scott dated 9 September 2013 states that he saw the applicant on 5 September 2013 and recounts in some detail his protection claims. Dr Scott describes the applicant as suffering from a mixed state of anxiety and depression for which he had been prescribed mirtazapine with instructions to Dr Bongiorno to increase the medication if required. A further report from Daniel Chable dated 27 September 2013 indicates that the applicant commenced treatment for symptoms of post-traumatic stress and depression on 11 September 2013 and has been assessed as suffering extremely severe depression, anxiety and stress for which he is undertaking cognitive behavioural strategies, recommending that treatment continue for several months and expressing the opinion that his condition would significantly deteriorate should he be returned to Pakistan, given that the applicant described a life where his family constantly had to move to avoid being attacked and killed by the Taliban and his life would be in serious danger. A post hearing submission dated 22 November 2013 indicates that the applicant has seen Mr Chable on five occasions. While the Tribunal accepts that the reports of Mr Chable and Dr Scott have been written in good faith, the Tribunal is not bound by what a medical professional concludes as being the reason for an applicant’s symptoms [MZWZB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FMCA 421]. In this case the Tribunal’s own concerns about the applicant’s credibility have caused the Tribunal to conclude that to the extent that those reports tend to corroborate the applicant’s account of the events underlying his refugee claims, they are to be given little weight [Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v MZYHS [2011] FCA 53].

    58. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant suffers from symptoms of PTSD, stress, anxiety and depression for which he has been prescribed anti-depressants and has had some cognitive behavioural therapy since September 2013. At hearing the Tribunal discussed with the applicant independent sources indicating that anti-depressants including mirtazapine were widely available and inexpensive in Pakistan (Refugee Review Tribunal “Country Advice Pakistan – PAK38392” 16 March 2011) to which the applicant responded that medications in Pakistan were mostly not the original and real medications and he would have to wait 3-4 months to see a psychiatrist, while in Australia he had medicare and could get treatment easily. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has access to public health care in Australia that would not be available to him in Pakistan but does not accept that he will be unable to access appropriate medications and finds that his family’s financial position will enable him to obtain appropriate treatment for his mental health conditions in a city such as Islamabad or Rawalpindi.”

    In my view, the Tribunal did consider the Applicant’s objection to relocation based on the Applicant’s mental health and its suggested deterioration, and the impact of such upon him. As noted in the preceding paragraph, the Tribunal found that, as a matter of fact, the Applicant would be able to find “appropriate treatment” for his mental health conditions in Islamabad or Rawalpindi.

1. The Applicant argued the Tribunal gave limited consideration to the opinion of Mr Chable, psychologist and that the consideration was confined to the question of corroboration of the Applicant’s account of the events which underlay his refugee claims. The claim that his mental condition, whatever its cause, would deteriorate if he were to return to Pakistan was, it was argued, not grappled with. But the evidence of Mr Chable to the effect that the Applicant’s mental health would “significantly deteriorate” should he be returned to Pakistan, was expressly premised on the Applicant’s contention that, in Pakistan, the Applicant would have to “constantly move location” in order to “avoid being attacked and killed by the Taliban” and that the Applicant’s “life would be in serious danger”. The Tribunal however had rejected the factual premise for Mr Chable’s opinion, which it was entitled to do as the ultimate fact finder.

2. The Tribunal did consider whether the Applicant’s mental health conditions meant that it was unreasonable for him to relocate to Islamabad or Rawalpindi. The Tribunal determined it was not unreasonable and did so on the basis of the evidence before it. Such a factual finding was open to it.

3. On the hearing of the matter, the Applicant’s Counsel, by oral submissions, alleged further grounds of jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal to that contained in the Amended Application, then recently filed. In essence, the Applicant sought to establish that the Tribunal had failed to consider other of the Applicant’s stated objections to the reasonableness of relocation to Islamabad or Rawalpindi. It was agreed between the parties that those matters could be addressed in further submissions filed.

4. The additional objections to relocation to Islamabad or Rawalpindi said to have been made by the Applicant, but not considered by the Tribunal, were as set out in the First Respondent’s Supplementary Submissions filed on 22 October 2014, and are as follows:-

   a)objection one: the Applicant would not be safe in those places because of his father’s profile;

   b)objection two: the Applicant’s mental health would be adversely affected by crime and violence in those places, even if he was not himself “caught up” in such crime or violence;

   c)objection three: the Applicant would be discriminated against in those places on the basis of being Pashtun, and not just by Pakistani authorities;

   d)objection four: the Applicant would not be safe in those places because he would likely become active and publically involved in anti-Taliban political organisations and events there; and

   e)objection five: the Applicant would not be safe from non-serious harm in those places because of his moderate Sunni beliefs, and his appearance.

5. The difficulty for the Applicant in these new arguments is that the Tribunal, having made a finding about the refugee question in respect of each claim made by the Applicant, then made a finding about the reasonableness of relocation. The Tribunal also considered reasonableness with reference to the Applicant’s objections which had no Convention nexus and which did not constitute serious harm.[11] The Tribunal clearly understood the questions of reasonable and refugees were different.

   [11] 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

6. The Tribunal did consider the range of other matters now put by the Applicant to the extent that such claims were clearly articulated by the Applicant or clearly before the Tribunal, on the evidence, in coming to the conclusion on the second issue that it would be reasonable for the Applicant to relocate to Islamabad and Rawalpindi. In particular, the Tribunal considered the Applicant’s objection to the effect that the incidence of sectarian attacks and “generalised violence” in Islamabad and Rawalpindi made it unreasonable for him to relocate to either of those cities. However, the Tribunal concluded that there was not a real chance that the Applicant would be affected by such incidents, and did not consider that these incidents made it unreasonable for the Applicant to relocate. The Tribunal also noted a range of positive factors that weighed in favour of its finding that it would be reasonable for the Applicant to relocate. The Tribunal considered the Applicant’s profile and that of his father on a fair reading of the Decision Record.

7. The Tribunal’s consideration of the Applicant’s mental health claim is referred to above. The Applicant did not make a clearly articulated claim that the existence of crime and violence in Pakistan would cause his mental health condition to deteriorate. In any event, the Tribunal found the chance that the Applicant would be “caught up” in such crime and violence was remote. The Tribunal dealt with the Applicant’s concerns about discrimination in employment and accommodation, and did not accept that “[i]n all of the circumstances”, which on a fair reading of the Decision Record included that he was obviously a Pashtun, the Applicant “would be unable to obtain support, earn a living or access accommodation in Islamabad or Rawalpindi”.

8. The Applicant claimed in Submissions dated 22 November 2013 and put before the Tribunal that, given his “strong commitment” to opposing the spread of  the Taliban, it was highly likely that he would either become “actively and publically involved in events and organisation” that would be perceived by the Taliban as being in opposition to them and thereby be at risk of “serious/significant harm”, or that he would “actively modify his behaviour contrary to his personal beliefs” to avoid this risk. Did the Tribunal consider this objection to relocation by the Applicant on the basis of its reasonableness? The Applicant argued the Tribunal did not deal with this particular objection and that there was no finding at a higher level of generality. The Tribunal said, at paragraph 49 of the Decision Record:-

   “… On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s actual or imputed political views make his relocation to Islamabad or Rawalpindi unsafe or unreasonable for the applicant.”

   Whilst the Tribunal did not make an express finding that the Applicant would not be involved, as claimed by him in his Submissions of November 2014, it did find that the Applicant did not undertake any political activity of his own, and rejected his many claims to have been so involved. It did not accept that he would have a likely involvement in political activity on a fair reading of the Decision Record, and it made the express finding that it did as to reasonableness as described above.

9. Overall the Tribunal considered the particular circumstances of the Applicant in the claims made by him, together with country information to further inform it and made findings open to it on the evidence.

10. The application shall be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding twenty-eight (28) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Hartnett

Associate: 

Date: 26 February 2015