Seneviratne v Minister for Immigration
[2009] FMCA 907
•23 September 2009
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SENEVIRATNE v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2009] FMCA 907 |
| MIGRATION – Visa – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – review of Migration Review Tribunal decision – English language proficiency – IELTS test – whether Tribunal misunderstood or misapplied Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cl.5A504(1)(d)(iii) – whether merits review – no jurisdictional error. WORDS & PHRASES – “substantial part”. |
| Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.368, 474, 476 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) Schedule 5A, cl.5A504(1)(d)(iii) |
| Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323; 180 ALR 1; 75 ALJR 1105; [2001] HCA 30 Li v Minister for Immigration [2008] FMCA 941 Liu v Minister for Immigration [2008] FMCA 750 Tamawood v Henley Arch (2004) 61 IPR 378; [2004] FCAFC 78 Network Ten Pty Limited v TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited (2004) 218 CLR 273; 205 ALR 1; 78 ALJR 585; [2004] HCA 14 Kim v Witton (1995) 59 FCR 258; [1995] FCA 1508 Shrestha v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1578 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Modi (2001) 116 FCR 496; [2001] FCA 1656 SZDFO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1192 NARE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 554 Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510; 162 ALR 1; 73 ALJR 584; [1999] HCA 14 Commissioner for Superannuation v Scott (1987) 71 ALR 408 Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (1979) 42 FLR 331 Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Stereo FM Pty Ltd and Anor (1982) 44 ALJR 557 |
| Applicant: | KAPPINA RUKSHALA CHATHURANGI MENDIS SENEVIRATNE |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | PEG 31 of 2009 |
| Judgment of: | Scarlett FM |
| Hearing date: | 11 August 2009 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 11 August 2009 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 23 September 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr Christie |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Henry Christie Lawyers |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Ms Needham |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The Application is dismissed.
The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,865.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH |
PEG 31 of 2009
| KAPPINA RUKSHALA CHATHURANGI MENDIS SENEVIRATNE |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| MIGRATION REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application
The Applicant is young woman from Sri Lanka who seeks review of a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal affirming a decision not to grant her a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa. The decision was made on 12th February 2009 by the Tribunal sitting in Melbourne.
By her amended application, the Applicant seeks orders that the First Respondent (the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) show cause why writs of prohibition and certiorari should not issue, respectively prohibiting the Minister from acting on the Tribunal decision and quashing that decision. She also seeks an order for costs.
Background
Miss Seneviratne[1] applied to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa on 20th February 2008. She advised that she was currently studying for the degree of Bachelor of Forensics in Forensic Biology and Toxicology at Murdoch University.[2]
[1] In her application she specifically gave her courtesy title as “Miss”
[2] See Court Book at page 2
Some correspondence ensued between the Applicant and the Department, relating to whether the Applicant had completed an IELTS[3] test not more than 24 months prior to the application for a visa. The Applicant advised the Department by email on 25th March 2008 that she did not realise that she had to sit for a test until she had received an email to that effect from the Department and it was not possible for her to do so because the two venues that conduct the tests in Western Australia did not have any available tests until 12th July 2008.[4]
[3] International English Language Testing System
[4] Court Book at 18
The Applicant then sought to rely on her academic transcripts to show her proficiency in English, but was informed by a Departmental officer that the information would be insufficient. The Minister’s delegate wrote to the Applicant on 29th May 2008, advising her that her application for a student visa was refused. The delegate said in the letter:
During a follow up discussion on 16 May 2008, you confirmed that you were unable to meet any of the English proficiency options to satisfy this criterion as you had recently changed courses and could not demonstrate successful substantive completion of your course, not did you have a current IELTS result (undertaken in the last 2 years). Therefore your application for a student visa is refused.[5]
[5] Court Book at 32
The Minister’s delegate formally refused the application for the visa on 29th May 2008.[6] The delegate’s Decision Record gave these reasons:
You did not satisfy Regulation 573.223(2)(a)(i)(A) for the following reasons:
On 20 February 2008 we received your application for further stay as a student. We sent you a request to provide evidence on English proficiency on 1 March 2008, giving 28 days to do so. In response to this, we received a copy of your academic transaction history in an attempt to demonstrate that you have completed a sufficient amount of your course to meet the criteria, however the results were unsuitable.
During a follow up telephone discussion on 16 May 2008, you confirmed that you were unable to meet any of the English proficiency options to satisfy this criterion as you had recently changed courses and could not demonstrate successful substantive completion of your course, nor did you have a current IELTS test result (undertaken in the last 2 years). Therefore your application for a student visa is refused.[7]
[6] Court Book 35
[7] Court Book 36
Application to the Migration Review Tribunal
On 25th June 2008 Miss Seneviratne applied to the Migration Review Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision.[8] On 24th December 2008 the Tribunal wrote to her and invited her to attend a hearing on 10th February 2009.
[8] Court Book 40-46
The Applicant attended the hearing, which was conducted by video conference, with the Member sitting in Melbourne.[9] She produced various documents from Murdoch University, showing that she was currently enrolled in the degree of Bachelor of Legal Studies with a Criminology major.[10]
[9] Court Book 54-55
[10] Court Book 56
The Tribunal Decision
The Tribunal made its decision on 12th February 2009, affirming the decision not to grant the Applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.[11]
[11] Court Book 61
In its decision, the Tribunal noted that the relevant assessment level for an applicant who had applied for a Subclass 573 visa and held an eligible passport from Sri Lanka is Assessment Level 4. It stated that the relevant provision was cl.5A504 of Schedule 5A.[12] The Tribunal stated that at the time of application the relevant requirement about English language proficiency was:
[12] Court Book 64 at [11]-[12]
(1)The applicant must give evidence that one of the following applies: …
(d)the applicant had, less than 2 years before the date of the application: …
(iii) as the holder of a student visa – successfully completed a substantial part of a course (other than a foundation course) that:
(A) was conducted in English; and
(B) was leading to a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework at the Certificate IV level or higher; …[13]
[13] Court Book 65 at [12]
In its Findings and Reasons, the Tribunal noted:
It was apparent at the start of the hearing that the applicant spoke excellent English.[14]
[14] Court Book 68 at [28]
The Tribunal accepted the Applicant’s evidence that she had been continuously studying tertiary education in Perth since the first semester in 2005 and was scheduled to complete her degree this year. It noted that she had not provided an IELTS test with her visa application and was therefore relying on cl.5A504(d)(iii).
The Tribunal found that it should consider whether or not the Applicant had completed a substantial part of her course as at the expiry date of the Applicant’s last student visa, which in this case was 15th March 2008. It accepted, from a letter from Murdoch University dated 13th January 2008 (but which should have been dated “2009”) that the Applicant had completed 47 out of 72 required units for graduation. However, the fact that the letter was in fact written in 2009 meant that it covered the subjects studied by the applicant in 2008, rather than at 15th March 2008.
The Tribunal therefore made this finding:
35.From the evidence provided, the Tribunal accepts that at the date of this decision the applicant has received an exemption for Biology from a previous course and has satisfactorily completed 10 units towards the Degree of Legal Studies providing her with 47 points out of the required 72 points for graduation. However of those results, seven of the subjects accounting for 26 points were studied and completed in 2008, which meant that at the time of application she had only completed three units of her degree plus was holding a credit for Biology. Accepting that her current status is that she has achieved 47 points out of the required 72 points, if the 26 points achieved in 2008 are deducted, it means that at the time of application, she had achieved 21 points of the required 72 points.
36.The Tribunal finds that having completed 21 of 72 points towards a degree does not constitute a substantial part of the course and therefore finds that the applicant does not satisfy the requirements for English Language Proficiency as detailed in clause 5A504(1)(d)(iii) in that she has not successfully completed a substantial part of her Bachelor of Legal Studies – Criminology course at Murdoch University.[15]
[15] Court Book 68-69 at [35]-[36]
The Tribunal therefore found that the Applicant had not given the Tribunal evidence of her English language proficiency for the purposes of each course of study that she proposed to undertake and affirmed the decision not to grant her a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.
Application to the Federal Magistrates Court
The Applicant applied to this Court for review of the Tribunal decision on 17th March 2009. Her counsel filed in Court on the hearing day an amended application, without objection.
The Applicant relies on the following grounds:
a)The Tribunal erred in law as to the meaning of the Statutory Requirement which was the basis for Tribunal affirming the decision to refuse to grant the Applicant a Subclass 573, what was meant by the requirement as set out in Schedule 5A for Assessment Level 4 that, at the time of the Tribunal decision, the Applicant had “as the holder of a student visa – successfully completed a substantial part of a course…”.
The particulars of the ground are;
a)The Applicant as a citizen and resident of Sri Lanka had entered Australia as the holder of Student Temporary Class TU (Subclass 573) Visa in February 2005. In order to obtain that Visa the Applicant had sat an IELTS test in or about 2004 and had achieved the required overall band score in excess of the required level of 6.0.
b)In 2005 the Applicant commenced studies for a Forensic Biology and Analytical Chemistry Degree at Curtin University. In 2006 the Applicant transferred to Murdoch University. At the beginning of 2007 the Applicant changed her course to Bachelor of Legal Studies – Criminology.
c)The Applicant applied for a further Student Temporary Class TU (Subclass 573) visa on 20th February 2008. The Applicant had not prior to lodging such an application sat a further IELTS test and was advised by DIAC that such further IELTS test must have been sat prior to lodging the Visa application and that it was therefore too late to sit a further IELTS test.
d)In order to qualify for the visa and at the time of the relevant decision, the Applicant was required to give the Minister evidence in accordance with Schedule 5A of the Migration Regulations of the English language proficiency for the purpose of each course of study that the Applicant proposes to study. Students from Sri Lanka are required to meet Assessment Level 4.
e)Schedule 5A Requirements for Assessment Level 4 relevantly required either:
i)An IELTS Test taken less than 2 years before making the Application with overall band score of at least 6.0; or
ii)The Applicant as the holder of a Student Visa – successfully completed a substantial part of a course … that:
(A) was conducted in English;
(B)was leading to a qualification of Certificate IV or higher … (the Degree courses undertaken by the Applicant would when completed constitute such a qualification significantly higher than Certificate IV)
f)On 29th May 2008 a delegate of the First Respondent refused the Application on the basis that the Applicant did not have a current IELTS test and that the Applicant could not demonstrate “substantive[16] completion” of her course.
g)Ministerial Policy as contained in PAMS 3 in relation to the phrase “successfully completed a substantial part of a course” states that “In all cases, the applicant should be able to demonstrate that they have undertaken more than half their course at time of visa application.” Examples then given as meeting the Policy are directed towards substantial completion of the currently undertaken course rather than having “successfully completed a substantial part of a course”. Such policy is contrary to the Regulations both with regard to the requirement of successful completion of at least half the course and/or substantial completion of the course and with regard to the requirement that such result must have occurred at the time of application.
h)The Applicant sought review by the Second Respondent and at the hearing before the Tribunal the Tribunal had evidence that the Applicant had for her Bachelor of Legal Studies successfully completed (including one credit) 7 units worth 21 points by the end of 2007 and a further 7 units worth 26 points in 2008. In order to complete her studies in 2009 the Applicant was studying for 3 mandatory units worth 4 points each and would take another 4 additional units worth 3 or 4 points each for a total of 72 points for her degree.
i)The Tribunal determined that only those units successfully completed prior to the expiry of the Applicant’s previous student visa could count and that the Applicant having completed 21 of 72 points the Applicant had not successfully completed a substantial part of her course namely Bachelor of Legal Studies – Criminology at Murdoch University.
j)In making such decision the Tribunal erred in law as to what was meant by the phrase “successfully completed a substantial part of a course” as required by the Regulations; in the alternative the Tribunal erred in law by applying the definition as contained in PAMS 3 namely that the student must have completed at least half and to have substantially completed the course currently undertaken.
k)The phrase “substantially completed a substantial part of a course” is undefined in the regulations and takes its ordinary English meaning having regard to the context in which it appears and the purpose which it is intended to address, namely whether the successful completion of a part of the Course is evidence that the particular applicant has the necessary English language skills to be a genuine student.
l)The Tribunal applied a purely mathematical and percentage meaning to the phrase “a substantial part of a course”. The Tribunal was required to have regard to the qualitative aspects of the phrase “substantial part” which included both the type of course relied on by the Applicant and the units which formed part of that course.
[16] sic
Submissions
Counsel for the Applicant, Mr Christie, submitted that, whilst the Tribunal did not expand or provide any reasons as to what it understood by the phrase “a substantial part of a course”, either it assumed that the meaning stated in the DIAC Policy required that more than half a course must be completed was correct or that it independently adopted and applied a similar incorrect meaning.
Further, he submitted that the Tribunal is required under s.368 of the Migration Act to give reasons for its decisions (see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf[17]). The Tribunal’s error is to be identified in its reasons or lack of reasons. The Tribunal appeared to have done no more than calculate the number of points achieved out of the total number required to complete the degree course and thereby determined that the percentage number of points in a course was the only relevant matter in making a determination as to the phrase “successfully completed a substantial part of a course”.
[17] (2001) 206 CLR 323; 180 ALR 1; 75 ALJR 1105; [2001] HCA 30
If the Tribunal applied DIAC policy as law, this would be an error of law, because the policy was not consistent with the regulations.
Mr Christie went on to submit that the ordinary meaning of “a substantial part” does not mean more than half. In the context of Regulation 5A.504, the phrase may mean no more than “a material part”, or “a considerable or important part”.
Further, it was submitted, the DIAC Policy at paragraph 65.5 of PAMS 3 makes no sense in logic, in that it makes no sense that a student can rely on a lesser number of successfully completed units in a more basic level and shorter Certificate IV or Diploma course and not be able to rely on a larger number of successfully completed units in a more difficult and longer degree course.
An error by the Tribunal as to what is meant in the Regulations by the requirement that the applicant has successfully completed a substantial part of the course, whether regarded as an error of law or an error of mixed fact and law, is a jurisdictional error (Li v Minister for Immigration[18] at [42]; Liu v Minister for Immigration[19] at [14]-[15]).
[18] [2008] FMCA 941
[19] [2008] FMCA 750
Counsel for the Applicant submitted that a qualitative approach, rather than a mere quantitative approach, is correct, as can be seen from the interpretation of the word “substantial” in other statutory contexts. The expression “substantial part” in copyright legislation refers to quality, rather than quantity (Tamawood v Henley Arch[20] at [50]). Similarly, Kirby J held in Network Ten Pty Limited v TCN Channel Nine Pty Limited[21] at [100]:
[20] (2004) 61 IPR 378; [2004] FAFC 78
[21] (2004) 218 CLR 273; 205 ALR 1; 78 ALJR 585; [2004] HCA 14
The text of “substantial part” under the (Copyright) Act imports criteria of “fact and degree”.
Similarly, Mr Christie referred to the use of the phrase “substantial compliance” in Kim v Witton[22] at [45], Shrestha v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[23] at [17], and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Modi[24]).
[22] (1995) 59 FCR 258; [1995] FCA 1508
[23] [2001] FCA 1578
[24] (2001) 116 FCR 496; [2001] FCA 1656
In summary, Mr Christie submitted that an applicant who wished to rely on evidence of having successfully completed a substantial part of a course was entitled to rely on a whole variety of different courses of different educational levels, involving different periods of study and involving a different number of subjects studied, provided that they were of Certificate IV level or higher.
Thus, the Tribunal in considering what was meant by “a substantial part of a course” so far as the Applicant was concerned, should have considered the following:
· That the course relied on by the Applicant was a 3 year university Degree course and as such involved study at a significantly higher level, for a significantly longer period and of a significantly greater number and variety of subjects, than the minimum required by the Regulations.
· That the part of the Course of Legal Studies, which had been successfully completed by the Applicant, comprised a number of Units which required proficiency in the English language and
· That the Applicant had achieved credits, not just pass marks, in a number of those Units, again demonstrating a more than minimum proficiency in English.[25]
[25] Applicant’s Outline of Submissions at paragraph [37]
Counsel for the Applicant submitted that by applying a purely percentage approach to the phrase “a substantial part of a course” and failing to consider qualitative matters, the Tribunal misunderstood and misapplied Regulation 5A.504(1)(d)(iii) and thereby fell into jurisdictional error.
The First Respondent’s Submissions
Ms Needham, who appeared for the First Respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, submitted that the particulars of the Applicant’s claim invite the Court to engage in a merits review of the Tribunal’s decision, which is outside the Court’s jurisdiction (SZDFO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs[26] at [7]; NARE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs[27] at [10]).
[26] [2004] FCA 1192
[27] [2003] FCA 554
Further, it was for the Applicant to make out her case tot eh Tribunal and to produce the necessary evidence to support it (Abebe v Commonwealth[28] at [187]).
[28] (1999) 197 CLR 510; 162 ALR 1; 73 ALJR 584; [1999] HCA 14
As to the Applicant’s contention that the Tribunal applied a test referred to in PAM 3, Ms Needham submitted that neither the document nor its contents are referred to anywhere in the Tribunal decision and the Applicant is effectively asking the Court to speculate as to the workings of the Tribunal’s mind.
Ms Needham submitted that there were restraints placed on the Tribunal in its consideration of the Applicant’s academic results:
a)It could not take into account the Applicant’s previous IELTS test result, as the test was undertaken more than two years earlier;
b)It could not take into account any of the units completed after 15th March 2008, the date of expiry of the previous visa; and
c)It could only consider courses of Certificate Level IV and above, and only one particular course.
Thus, the Tribunal could only take into account the work completed by the Applicant towards one of the two courses that she commenced during the relevant time.
It was submitted that what amounts to substantial completion of a course is a matter of fact for the Tribunal to be determined on the evidence available (see Commissioner for Superannuation v Scott[29] AT 412-413, citing Deane J in Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union[30]).
[29] (1987) 71 ALR 408
[30] (1979) 42 FLR 331
By asking why an applicant should have to study for longer to complete a substantial part of a Bachelor degree as opposed to a Certificate Level 4 course the applicant is inviting the Court to re-assess the Tribunal decision.
The Court was referred to the decision of Lockhart J in Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd v Stereo FM Pty Ltd and Anor[31], where his Honour said at 563:
The word “substantial” is imprecise and ambiguous. Its meaning must be taken form its context. It can mean considerable or big (Palser v Grinling [1948] AC 291, per Viscount Simon (at 317). It can also mean not merely nominal, ephemeral or minimal. Sometimes it is used in a relative sense, and at other times to indicate an absolute size or quantity.
[31] (1982) 44 ALJR 557
Again, it was submitted for the Minister that the Applicant was asking the Court to enter into a merits review by asking that the Court consider one type of course requiring a high level of English over another, and to consider what the Applicant was actually studying, which is not an appropriate consideration for the Court.
The Tribunal decided the question on the evidence supplied to it by the Applicant. That evidence was of quantity and not of quality as to what the Applicant had completed.
Thus, it is submitted that the Tribunal asked itself the right question based on the evidence provided by the Applicant, and there is no jurisdictional error.
Conclusions
The issue in this matter relates to the Tribunal’s finding that the Applicant had completed 21 out of 72 points towards the degree of Bachelor of Legal Studies with a major in Criminology, which was insufficient to establish that she had successfully completed a substantial part of the degree. As a result, she had not provided evidence under cl.5A504 of Schedule 5A for Subclass 573 that she had the required level of proficiency in English.
The Applicant took issue with the Tribunal’s finding that 21 points out of 72 was insufficient to establish that she had completed a substantial part of the course. As to the claim that the Tribunal followed a test in a Departmental guideline in the Department’s policy manual, known as PAM3, and therefore fell into jurisdictional error, there is no evidence that the Tribunal acted in that way.
There is no reference to PAM3 at any place in the Tribunal Decision Record, nor is there any reference to any policy guideline of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. In effect, the Applicant is asking the Court to speculate as to what was contained in the Tribunal’s thought processes.
There is considerable strength in the Minister’s submission that the Applicant is asking the Court to engage in merits review of the Tribunal decision.
The Applicant submitted her academic transcript to the Tribunal as evidence of her successful completion of a substantial part of the course. There is nothing to show that the Tribunal misunderstood what the academic transcript showed or that it failed to consider some part of the transcript that would establish that she had completed more than the 21 points out of the required 72 necessary for the degree.
The Applicant’s argument is that the Tribunal misunderstood what was required to establish a “substantial part” by considering only the amount of points she had obtained and not the qualitative aspect, being the degree of difficulty of the courses which she had completed. The difficulty for the Applicant is that she did not present any evidence to the Tribunal about that aspect or make any submissions to that effect. It may well be, as Mr Christie submitted on the Applicant’s behalf, that the Applicant’s subjects were of a greater complexity than those required for a Certificate IV or Diploma course, but that submission was not made to the Tribunal. Again, there is nothing in clause 5A504 of Schedule 5A that requires the Tribunal to undertake that kind of examination of an applicant’s qualifications.
Whilst the Applicant relies on definitions of the term “a substantial part” in the decisions in Tamawood v Henley Arch[32] and Network Ten Pty ltd v TCN Channel Nine[33], in my view those decisions relate specifically to matters under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) and are of little assistance in the matter presently before the Court.
[32] Supra
[33] Supra
Essentially, the decision as to whether the Applicant had successfully completed a substantial part of her degree was a matter of fact, and it is well-established that matters of fact are matters for the administrative decision-maker, in this case the Migration Review Tribunal. As Allsop J held in SZDFO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs[34]:
The legislative structure of the Migration Act together with the Judiciary Act provide for limited grounds of review of the decision of the Tribunal by the Court. The hearing before the Court, in this case at first instance before the Federal Magistrates Court, is not a review of all the facts for a second time – the application to the Magistrates Court from the Tribunal is not a rehearing of the claims on the merits.[35]
[34] Supra
[35] [2004] FCA 1192 at [7]
In my view, the Tribunal did not fall into jurisdictional error when it decided that the Applicant’s evidence of successful completion of 21 out of 72 points towards the degree of Bachelor of Legal Studies with a major in Criminology was not evidence of successful completion of a substantial part of her course.
It follows that, in the absence of jurisdictional error, the Tribunal decision is a privative clause decision, as defined by s.474(2) of the Migration Act. Privative clause decisions are final and conclusive and not subject to prohibition or certiorari, which the Applicant seeks (s.474(1)).
Thus, the application must be dismissed.
It is normally the case that costs follow the event, and it would appear appropriate that this application should be dismissed with costs. It would be preferable for a fixed costs order to be made.
The circumstances of this matter are unfortunate, in that it is clear that Miss Seneviratne does in fact speak excellent English, a fact that the Tribunal acknowledged.[36] It is also made clear at the hearing of this matter that she is within about two months of completing the requirements for her degree. It would be most regrettable if she were not able to complete the degree in the circumstances.
[36] Court Book 68 at [28]
I certify that the preceding fifty-three (53) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM
Associate: V. Lee
Date: 15 September 2009
4