Philips v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2000] FCA 956

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Philips v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 956

RAFIQ PHILIPS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

N 356 OF 2000

LINDGREN J
18 JULY 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 356 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	RAFIQ PHILIPS APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE OF ORDER:	18 JULY 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.   The application be dismissed.

2.   The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 356 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	RAFIQ PHILIPS APPLICANT
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	LINDGREN J
DATE:	18 JULY 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. Section 29 of the Migration Act1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) provides that subject to the Act, the respondent (“the Minister”) may grant a non-citizen permission, to be known as a visa, to do either or both of the following:

   (a)travel to and enter Australia;

   (b)remain in Australia.

2. The applicant (“Mr Philips”) applies under s 476(1) of the Act for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”) affirming a decision of a delegate of the Minister (“the Delegate”) not to grant him a protection visa permitting him to remain in Australia. It is not in dispute that the Minister delegated all relevant powers to the Delegate pursuant to s 496 of the Act.

3. Section 65 of the Act provides that after considering a valid application for a visa, the Minister, if satisfied of the matters specified in the section, is to grant the visa, or, if not so satisfied, is not to grant the visa. One of the matters specified in s 65 is that the criteria for the visa specified by the Act or the regulations have been satisfied. Section 36 of the Act provides that a criterion for the grant of a protection visa is that the applicant for it is a non-citizen in Australia to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951, as “amended” by the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967 (compendiously, “the Convention”).  

4. Article 1A(2) of the Convention provides that a refugee is any person who:

   “owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”

5. Criteria to be satisfied by an applicant for a protection visa at the time of the decision on the application also include the criterion specified in cl 866.221 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994, which is that the Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Convention.

6. The RRT’s decision was a “judicially reviewable decision” (s 475(1)(b) of the Act); the Applicant was entitled to apply to this Court for review of it on certain grounds (s 476); and the Court has the jurisdiction provided by Part 8 of the Act, but no other jurisdiction, with respect to it (ss 485, 486).

7. Mr Philips’ case is that he is outside the country of his nationality, Pakistan, and is unwilling to return to it because of a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of religion.

   Procedural background

8. Mr Philips arrived in Australia on 25 October 1996.  On 23 December 1996, he applied for the protection visa (visa sub-class 866).  On 28 October 1997, the Delegate refused the application.  The RRT affirmed the Delegate’s decision on 28 August 1998.  Mr Philips sought review of the RRT’s decision by this Court, and on 8 March 1999 the Court set aside the decision by consent and remitted the matter to the RRT to be determined according to law.  The RRT, differently constituted, conducted a hearing on 24 August 1999.  On 16 March 2000, the RRT affirmed the Delegate’s decision.  On 13 April 2000, Mr Philips filed his application in this Court for review of the RRT’s decision.

   The reasons for decision of the RRT

9. The RRT commenced its reasons for decision by referring to the procedural background, the legislative framework and the law relating to the Convention definition of a “refugee”.  It then turned to consider Mr Philips’ claims and evidence.

10. Mr Philips is a 35 year old Christian who is married with three children.  He has two sisters and two brothers.  His wife and children are still in Pakistan.  His sister, Rani, is an Australian citizen. His sister Roohi is also an applicant for a protection visa in Australia. Mr Philips’ father studied to be a Minister of Religion in Abbottabad.  He became an itinerant pastor and changed the family name to “Philips”. He joined the Assembly of God Church some time before 1980.  He continued to perform his duties as a pastor of that Church, including conducting house churches, until mid-1998 when he became ill.

11. Mr Philips attended a Christian primary school in Gujranwala, and then completed an apprenticeship as a tailor in Lahore.  After about 3 years, his family went to live in Karachi because Muslim boys in Guyranwala were harassing the Christian girls, including his sister.  Mr Philips’ brothers avoided problems in Karachi by using the old family name, “Subah Rahi”.  The RRT asked him why he did not change his name also, but he responded that everyone now knows that he is a Christian. Mr Philips said that his father did not encounter problems on account of being an Assembly of God pastor, but that his father did have problems on account of Mr Philips.

12. Mr Philips claimed that his tailoring business was successful and that this created problems with Muslim people who were jealous of a Christian family doing well commercially.  He claimed in his written submission to the RRT that one in day 1983 or 1984, about 4 or 5 Muslim men came to his tailor shop in Karachi and confronted him, threatened him and told him to shut the shop.  They tore a picture of Jesus Christ from the wall, destroyed a tape recorder that was playing Christian music and broke a Christian cross that was on a table. They damaged a showcase and stock.  They assaulted Mr Philips and forced him into the street and shut the shop.  They told him that if he opened the shop again they would kill him and his family.

13. At the RRT hearing, Mr Philips claimed that the Muslims had a meeting before they went to his shop.  The RRT asked whether he had always displayed a picture of Jesus Christ and played Christian music in his shop.  He said that he had always had a picture of Christ and would play Christian music in the mornings when he opened his shop, so that he could start the day in the name of God.  He claimed that his Muslim customers never objected to these things; it was only the other shopkeepers who were unhappy.

14. Mr Philips told the RRT that the people in this group were all tailors who were business competitors.  The RRT asked whether he thought that they came to attack his shop because they were jealous of his business success and noted that they did not attack other members of his family, although they were also Christians.  He responded that he would not have had these problems if he had been a Muslim.  The RRT noted that Mr Philips was in business safely for a few years and had had problems only after his business had become successful and started attracting custom from his Muslim competitors.  He said that if he had been a Muslim he would have been left alone, even if he had been prospering.

15. The RRT asked Mr Philips if he had taken action which might enable him to remain in business, such as going to the police.  He said that he felt that the police would side with the Muslims.  He also feared that his attackers would attack him again if they knew that he had approached the police.  The RRT noted that Mr Philips had first told the RRT that he went to the police, but they did nothing because he could not identify his attackers.  He said that both answers were correct because if he went to the police they would do nothing.  He claimed that he did go to the police but did not mention the attackers’ names because he was fearful of the consequences.  The RRT asked Mr Philips why he told the  RRT earlier that he did not go to the police at all and why he stated in his statutory declaration that another Christian family had advised him not to approach the police as they were corrupt and would not support a Christian complaining against a Muslim.  Mr Philips said his mind was not working.

16. After the Karachi shop incident mentioned, Mr Philips did not open his shop again and his father decided that Mr Philips should leave Karachi as he was not safe there.  The RRT suggested that once he closed his shop the other tailors would have no continuing interest in him and he would no longer need to be fearful.  He responded that he felt threatened so his father told him he should leave. His father sent him to Quetta in Baluchistan Province where he stayed with a Christian friend for a few months.

17. He then went to work in Dubai for 4 to 5 years.  He returned home once during this time but stayed with a friend rather than with his family because he felt it would be dangerous to stay with his family. He also came from Dubai to Australia for a holiday with his sister Rani, in January 1988, returning to Dubai to work. In about 1989/1990 he went to Karachi but soon afterwards moved to live with his sister Rani and her husband, Rev Jeffrey Camm, at Chaklala III, a military compound near Rawalpindi. Rev Camm was working as a consultant in Pakistan at the time.

18. In 1991, after political violence in the area, Mr Philips’ brother-in-law, Rev Camm, arranged for the family to leave Karachi and live in Chaklala.  Mr Philips played cricket with local people in Chaklala and did not disclose to them that he was Christian.  He said that they thought he was Muslim because of his first name and did not know his last name.  One Sunday, a team member saw him going to Church in Islamabad. When he next went to play with the team, other members of the team were abusive to him and the team captain punched him in the face and pushed his cigarette into Mr Philips’ left cheek.  The RRT told Mr Philips it found it implausible that the cricket team would not have known that he was a Christian and would not have known his last name.  He claimed that about a week later, a car in which he was travelling as a passenger was hit from behind and crashed into another car.  In his statutory declaration Mr Philips said that he recognised the people in the car as people from his cricket team.  At the RRT hearing he said that he just caught a glimpse of the people in the car and did not know how many of them there were.  He claimed that the car lost control and he became unconscious and sustained a broken jaw.

19. He returned to Gujranwala in 1994 and rented a shop from some Muslims in the Muslim area.  His business was known as “Rafiq Tailoring” and prospered. He won a contract to make school uniforms for a Muslim Girls’ School. In his statutory declaration, he claimed that in early 1996 men with green turbans from a fundamentalist group came to his tailor’s shop in Gujranwala to collect donations for a mosque.  They said he should put up some Islamic verses on the wall rather than a Christian religious picture. They accused him of blaspheming Mohammed, ransacked his shop and threatened to kill him.  At the hearing he said that they told him to pull down the picture and bashed his head on the counter, pushed him down and accused him of saying things against Mohammed.  He said that girls from the Madrasa (a school of religion for study of the Koran) came to him for their uniforms.  Some boys came and told him that only a Muslim should have such a job.  There were other tailors nearby but none were as close to the Madrasa as Mr Philips’ shop was.  The RRT asked Mr Philips whether the Madrasa had any problems with him supplying uniforms and clothes to the girls and he said it did not.  He did not know why “the Green Turbans” had a problem with him if the Madrasa did not.

20. Mr Philips said that on the occasion in question there were perhaps two or three people inside the shop and a couple outside.  The RRT pointed out that in his application he claimed that his shop was attacked by “fifty sixty” people who shouted and threw stones and accused him of defiling Mohammed’s name.  He told the RRT that that was untrue.  The RRT pointed out that he told the first RRT that he had been hit with a ruler by the Green Turbans.  Mr Philips said that that was true and said his mind was mixed up and that therefore he did not tell the first RRT about having his head bashed.  The RRT noted that his father was a Christian pastor and must have been of far greater interest to the Green Turbans than an ordinary person like Mr Philips. 

21. Mr Philips went to stay with a friend in Lahore for a few months.  His brother-in-law applied for a visa for him from the Australian High Commission in Islamabad.  Mr Philips took the forms there but a local staff member demanded a bribe before accepting them.  Mr Philips’ brother-in-law arranged for an Australian solicitor to send the necessary form and a visa was issued in October 1996.

22. Mr Philips claimed that he did not feel safe living anywhere in Pakistan.  He said that he had had problems in Karachi and Islamabad and that his persecutors would look for him wherever he went.  He does not believe that the police would protect him, as they are corrupt and do not protect minorities such as Christians.

23. Mr Philips’ sister, Rani, made a statutory declaration in support of her brother’s protection visa application.  She claimed that after their father’s memorial service a big man wearing a turban knocked at the door.  Rani’s aunt was in bed and screamed out for Rani.  Rani pushed the door closed on the man’s leg.  Rani’s aunt said that that man had come around asking where Rafiq and Roohi were. He yelled at the aunt that he would kill Rani.  Rani claimed that the family home was in the names of herself and her late father.  She wanted to sell the house.  She believed that she was prevented from having the house transferred into her name and sold because she and her family are Christian.

24. Lieutenant Stanhope from the Salvation Army gave evidence that Mr Philips has been attending his church since November 1997. After the RRT hearing, Sister Gabrielle Jennings of the Notre Dame Institute of Education, Karachi, provided to Mr Philips’ adviser written information on the position of Christians in Pakistan.  The RRT also noted a psychologist’s report on Mr Philips which commented on features of his history and present condition which would account for the vagueness and inconsistencies that characterised his account of events.

25. The RRT also reviewed documentary evidence on Mr Philips’ file at the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the files relating to the earlier RRT proceeding.  This survey included a letter from Mr Philips’ wife dated 15 September 1997 claiming that the people who tried to kill him are still looking for him everywhere.  She also claimed that the Muslims throw stones and rocks at her house and block up the sewerage pipes in an attempt to force them out of the house.  The RRT then turned to independent country information on the situation of Christians in Pakistan.

26. The RRT stated that it had some very serious concerns about the veracity of Mr Philips’ claims.  Mr Philips made clearly contradictory claims at the RRT hearing itself and in the various accounts he has given over time.  The RRT accepted that some of the minor inconsistencies in Mr Philips’ evidence could be explained by his psychological state but thought that this did not explain all of the difficulties with his evidence. The RRT listed some instances of inconsistent or implausible testimony.

27. The RRT noted that Mr Philips made several attempts to explain some of the inconsistencies but had failed to satisfy the RRT that everything he had claimed was truthful.  It found that large parts were concocted in order to support his application for refugee status in Australia. 

28. The RRT did, however, accept aspects of his claims.  For instance, it accepted that he is Christian, that his father was a preacher, that he is a tailor and that he had successful businesses in Karachi, Gujranwala and Rawalpindi. 

29. The RRT was prepared to accept that Mr Philips was threatened by the local Muslim tailors in Karachi once and that some damage was done to his shop.  The RRT found that Mr Philips had no significant difficulties in Pakistan until his businesses became successful and raised the ire of his Muslim competitors.  The RRT concluded from this that his religion was not his real problem in Pakistan; rather, it was that his business competitors envied and resented his success.  The RRT was not satisfied that there were multiple motivations for the attack which included religion; the RRT was not satisfied that religion was a motivation for the attack at all.  Accordingly, it was not satisfied that the attack was Convention related.

30. Furthermore, the RRT stated that there was no evidence before it which was capable of satisfying it that state protection was not available to Mr Philips in relation to the attack.

31. Finally, the RRT noted that as Mr Philips was of interest to his attackers simply because he was a business competitor, the fact that he is no longer in business in Karachi as a tailor means that he is of no continuing interest to them.  The RRT was not satisfied that the attackers would have any interest in continuing to pursue Mr Philips as they have long ago achieved their objective of removing the competition offered by his business.

32. In relation to his life in Karachi, the RRT found that Mr Philips was not in any danger as a Christian because his family, including his pastor father, had been in no danger for that reason.  It found his claim about having to hide in Karachi when he returned there for holidays in the late 1980s to be implausible.  It found that his voluntary return to Karachi indicated that he did not have a subjective fear of being in Karachi. The RRT was not satisfied that, in the context of the level of violence generally in Karachi at the time, that the harassment suffered by the family was for a Convention reason, or that the harassment represented “some serious punishment or penalty or some significant detriment or disadvantage” which could be regarded as persecution.

33. In relation to the “cricket team incident”, the RRT was unable to accept that the members of the cricket team would not have known Mr Philips’ surname or that he was a Christian.  Nor did it accept that Mr Philips, who claimed that he was so fearful of Muslims generally and was so careful to stay out of trouble that he never left the compound in which he was staying at the time, would sign up for a cricket team of Muslims who played other Muslim teams.  It therefore did not accept that Mr Philips had any problems in Rawalpindi, let alone any problems associated with his cricket team.  Nor was it satisfied that the car accident in which the applicant was involved in Rawalpindi was Convention related or that it had caused him to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Pakistan for reason of religion.

34. In relation to the “Green Turbans incident”, the RRT had significant difficulties with the veracity of Mr Philips’ testimony, particularly his previous exaggerated account which he was unable to explain.  The RRT accepted that he had experienced a single act of harm in Gujranwala, but noted that this one act was not indicative of his being targeted there for reason of religion.  The RRT could only suppose that the attack was an act of violence perpetrated by criminals.  The RRT found it implausible that, given his previous happy relationship with the community, his customers and the local Green Turbans, who were all aware that he was a Christian, and the Muslims would turn on him suddenly in this way.  There was nothing about Mr Philips which set him apart from the rest of the Christian community or the rest of his family, none of whom were harassed.  The RRT was not satisfied that this single random criminal act amounted to persecution in the Convention sense. Nor was it satisfied that Mr Philips was specifically targeted in a way which suggested that he would be of continuing interest to those who allegedly attacked him.  In any case, the RRT noted that following the incident Mr Philips did not seek the assistance of the police, choosing instead to run away to Lahore.  The RRT was not satisfied that state protection was not available to Mr Philips. 

1. Mr Philips arrived in Australia in October 1996 and did not apply for the protection visa until December 1996.  This two month delay suggested to the RRT that Mr Philips felt no urgency about securing his future safety and seeking protection.  This reinforced the RRT’s conclusion that the claims Mr Philips has made do not establish a well-founded fear of persecution in Pakistan for a Convention reason.

2. The RRT accepted that Mr Philips has experienced the discrimination and harassment which Christians are subjected to in Pakistan.  The RRT accepted that the discrimination and harassment which Mr Philips may have been subjected to has been unpleasant, but not that it has been of a substantially prejudicial nature or that it is to be categorised as persecution in the Convention sense. 

3. The RRT did not accept that Mr Philips has suffered any restriction on his ability to practise his religion.  Mr Philips had never sought the assistance of the police.  The RRT accepted that Pakistan is a violent and corrupt country where many abuses occur, but was not satisfied that Mr Philips had been specifically targeted for a Convention reason for any sort of harm that was serious enough to amount to persecution.  It was not satisfied that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in Pakistan for a Convention reason now or in the reasonable foreseeable future.

   Grounds of the present application for an order of review

4. In Mr Philips’ amended application for an order of review identifies the following grounds:

   “1.That procedures required to be observed by section 430 of the Act were not observed (s476(1)(a)), in that the Tribunal failed to make findings of fact on material points.

   Particulars

   1.1The Tribunal failed to say what it found had and hadn’t occurred in relation to the applicant’s claims of vandalism and acts of violence centred on the applicant’s family and family home.

   1.2The Tribunal failed to say whether it accepted or rejected the evidence of Ms Rani Camm, in full, or in part.

   1.3The Tribunal failed to say whether it accepted or rejected the letters to the applicant from the applicant’s wife, and say whether, or to what extent, it accepted them.

   2.The decision involved an error of law (s476(1)(e)).

   Particulars

   2.1The Tribunal misunderstood the appropriate test to apply in relation to the causal link between persecution and religious belief.

   2.2The Tribunal misunderstood the gravity of conduct required to constitute persecution.”

   Outline of submissions on the present application for an order of review

5. Counsel for Mr Philips submits that the RRT was obliged by s 430 of the Act, to state exactly what it did and did not accept in relation to the assaults and intimidation alleged. Furthermore, when the RRT noted that a claim was “somewhat overstated” it was bound, according to the submission, to expound what it was ultimately satisfied had in fact occurred. The RRT was obliged to consider the letter to Mr Philips from his wife and to state whether, and to what extent, it accepted the allegations in it.

6. Counsel for the Minister submits that the RRT made numerous and specific findings in relation to each of Mr Philips’ claims which were more than sufficient to satisfy s 430. The RRT’s reference to the claims being “somewhat overstated” was simply part of its reasoning process that led to the finding that the claims were not genuine. In relation to the wife’s letter, the Minister submits that there is no general obligation on the RRT to address all material pointing to a conclusion contrary to that of the RRT.

7. Mr Philips submits that in focusing on the ends which the attackers sought to achieve, the RRT misunderstood the notion of causation invoked by the expression “for reasons of” in the Convention definition.  His counsel relies on the discussion of causation by Lord Hoffman in Islam v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1992] AC 629.

8. The Minister, on the other hand, argues that the findings of fact made by the RRT negate this argument: the RRT found that the motivation for the attack was exclusively business rivalry and that there was no failure of state protection.

   Reasoning on the present application for an order of review

   First ground of the application – failure to observe required procedures (s 476(1)(a))

9. In my respectful opinion, there is no substance in the first ground of the application. The RRT began its Reasons for Decision by specifying five inconsistencies in Mr Philips’ various accounts of his experiences in Pakistan and explaining why it did not accept that these were attributable to his “depressive and traumatised state”, as suggested by the psychologist. The RRT had “very serious concerns” about the veracity of Mr Philips’ claims and in fact concluded that “large parts of [his] story [had] been concocted in order to support his claims for refugee status in Australia.” There were, however, parts of his claims the RRT did accept and it identified those parts. In particular it accepted that members of Mr Philips’ family, including his pastor father, had never had any significant difficulty in Pakistan. This led it to conclude that on Mr Philips’ own account, what had given rise to any difficulties he had experienced was not religion, but his success in his tailoring business. This was a sufficient finding on which to affirm the Delegate’s decision, in so far as Mr Philips’ claims were based on the two attacks at his shops.

10. In so far as his claims were based on happenings at the family home after he left Pakistan, the RRT said that the claims were “somewhat overstated” and that it was not satisfied that they were genuine. The claims related to the problems with drainage, sewerage pipes and the gas supply. The RRT observed that Mr Philips still had relatives living in the house “several years after these problems started.” The reference to “overstatement” is clearly to be understood in that context: the RRT was stating that even if it should be wrong in thinking these claims not genuine, they were at least “overstated” because they were apparently not of continuing significance to Mr Philips’ relatives who continued to reside in the house. By the reference to overstatement, the RRT intended to convey that the events had not had such a serious effect on the family as the RRT was being asked to believe. This was an evaluation of the evidence that the RRT was entitled to make.

11. Mr Philips submits that the RRT was obliged to deal with letters to him from his wife in Pakistan. But the RRT did address many, if not all, of the claims made by his wife. Mr Philips’ wife was a source of information about the problems with the services to the family’s home referred to in the last paragraph above. In any event, it is not a ground of review that a letter contains some particular matter or matters pointing against the conclusion ultimately reached by the RRT, which the RRT did not address: Minister of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Singh [2000] FCA 845 at [46].

12. The RRT dealt with, but did not accept, Rani’s testimony that she and Mr Philips were still being looked for so long after they had left Pakistan. The RRT was not satisfied that they were of continuing interest to local Muslims, some years after they had left the country.

    Second ground of the application – error of law (s 476(1)(e))

13. The present case is distinguishable from the hypothetical “Jewish shopkeeper” illustration given by Lord Hoffman in Islam v Secretary of State for the House Department [1992] AC 629 at 653 (referred to with approval by Kirby J in Chen Shi Hai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 170 ALR 553 at [69]). There are two reasons: the RRT found that the acts of Mr Philips’ trade rivals had nothing to do with religion and the RRT was not satisfied that state protection was not available to Mr Philips. In Lord Hoffman’s hypothetical case, the business competitor and his gang, although motivated by business rivalry, would not have done what they did unless they knew that the German Nazi government would allow them to do so with impunity.

14. In the course of the hearing I suggested to counsel for Mr Philips that the following passage from the RRT’s Reason for Decision appeared to be fatal to Mr Philips’ claim:

    “…there is no evidence before the Tribunal which is capable of satisfying it that state protection was not available to the applicant….The Tribunal is not satisfied that state protection was not available to the applicant…”

    The context was the alleged attack on Mr Philips’ shop in Karachi, but the passage is of general application. Counsel was not able to put anything against the suggestion.

    Conclusion

15. For the above reasons the application will be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding forty- nine (49) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Lindgren.

Associate:

Dated:             18 July 2000

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr C Jackson
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr R Beech-Jones
Solicitor for the Respondent:	The Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	7 July  2000
Date of Judgment:	18 July 2000