SZFWJ v Minister for Immigration
[2006] FMCA 1231
•25 August 2006
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZFWJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2006] FMCA 1231 |
| MIGRATION – Review of RRT decision − where matter heard following remittal by Federal Court − where applicant provided Tribunal evidence in form of a newspaper article − where Tribunal drew adverse conclusion from article − whether adverse conclusion was open to be drawn from context of the article − whether Tribunal failed to put the adverse conclusion to the applicant − whether failure breach of procedural fairness − whether Tribunal made findings of fact, essential to its decision, which were unsupported by evidence. |
| Migration Act 1958, s.65 |
| Applicant A99 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 773 Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576 Navarrete v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 1723 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at [355-377] Minister for Immigration v VOAO & VOAP [2005] FCAFC 50 SFGB v Minister for Immigration [2003] 77 ALD 402 |
| Applicant: | SZFWJ |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG609 of 2005 |
| Judgment of: | Raphael FM |
| Hearing date: | 11 August 2006 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 11 August 2006 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 25 August 2006 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr L. Karp |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Parish Patience Immigration |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Mr J. Smith |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
The decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made on 19 January 2005 and handed down on 10 February 2005 is invalid and of no effect.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application for review be referred back to the Refugee Review Tribunal, differently constituted, to be heard and determined according to law.
The respondent pay the applicant’s costs assessed in the sum of $5,000.00.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG609 of 2005
| SZFWJ |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The applicant is a citizen of Nepal. He arrived in Australia on 11 December 2001. On 13 December 2001 he lodged an application for a protection (Class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. On 20 February 2002 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant a protection visa and on 12 March 2002 the applicant applied for review of that decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal. On 31 December 2002 the Tribunal determined to affirm the delegate’s decision. The applicant appealed against that decision in the Federal Court which remitted the matter to the RRT by judgment on 9 July 2004; Applicant A99 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 773.
The applicant then attended a hearing before a differently constituted Tribunal on 9 November 2004. The applicant was represented by an advisor. On 19 January 2005 the second Tribunal determined to affirm the decision of the delegate and it handed that decision down on 10 February 2005.
The factual matters which ground the applicant’s claim to have a well founded fear of persecution for the Convention reason of political opinion have been helpfully documented and cross referenced to the transcripts by Mr Karp in his written submissions. The applicant lived in Gorkha and migrated to Simara in Bara district on the Nepali/Indian border. He had been a member of the communist party of Nepal (Marxist Leninist) since his schooldays. He had been elected to the Village Development Committee (“VDC”) in about 1997. He held the position of vice president of the VDC but because the president became incapacitated through illness he took on some of those responsibilities. The applicant claimed to be anti-Maoist in an area where the Maoist insurrection was developing into a matter of serious concern. He told of being subject to verbal threats in the form of demands for money from the VDC budget by Maoists in his district. The applicant claimed that in mid-2000 he received a written warning from the district committee (Bara) of the NCP (Maoist). This document, the translation of which is the first document in Exhibit 2 is in the following form:
“Date: 16/07/2000
Subject: Acknowledgement of the final warning
Name and address
Further to our verbal warning time and again regarding your actions which promoted public disbelief in our party and organisations and your refusal to act according to us despite this, you are required by this final notice to stop working against our party, resign from your post immediately and have over the sum of 5,00,000 Rupees which was allocated by the District Development Committee for your Village Development Committee to us. It is acknowledged that not cooperating this final warning will result in the fatal actions against you according to our party mandates.”
The actual letter was written in the Nepali script on letterhead partly in Nepali and partly in English, the English section bearing the words:
“Nepal Communist Party (Ma-ost) Districkt Committee (Bara)” [sic].
The applicant claimed that after he had received this letter he decided to leave the area and relocated to Kathmandu without his family. He found work for a domestic airline, probably as a result of political connections. He was able to visit Simara several times on VDC business from Kathmandu. The Tribunal accepted that he was required to carry out some residual work in relation to his former duties. The applicant said these visits were required to be made in secret because of outstanding threats from the Maoists in Bara. The applicant claimed that after he had arrived in Kathmandu an article was published in a newspaper suggesting that he was attempting to put pressure on the police to have people arrested. In July 2001 the applicant received a letter from the suburban police in Bara. This letter was in the following form:
“Further to the information we received from the special sources, as the Nepal Communist Party, Maoist, Bara District Committee has decided to undertake a fatal attack upon you, I would like to acknowledge you of this accordingly. And it is requested that you will let us know regarding any programmes which you attend n various wards within this Village Development Committee in order to enable us to provide you with the required security. It is acknowledged that we will not be held liable in the event you fail to inform us within appropriate time.”
The applicant also told of other threats received by his wife and received by him indirectly through friends at work. The applicant feared to return to Nepal because he was unable to tell who or whom might not be supporting the Maoists. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had worked as vice president of the VDC for some years and would have been known to local Maoists. It accepted that the Maoist insurgency had taken an increasing hold in Bara since 2002 and that the number of killings in that area had increased, although it was not as high during the period in which the applicant remained in the town.
The Tribunal wrote a lengthy (33 page) decision which dealt with the claims of the applicant, any discrepancies between evidence given to the first Tribunal and evidence given to the second Tribunal and some discrepancies in the evidence given to it. The applicant had produced in support of his claim a newspaper interview which, although it formed a very important part of the Tribunal’s decision, was not included in the second green book but is found in Exhibit 2 as the fourth document. The article is not long and is set out in full below:
“What may be the basis of your victory in the election?
Party declared policy, involvement in the joy and grief of the people particularly work being equal partner with the youth are the main basis of victory in the election.
Whether, have you made some commitment in the election?
The commitment to resolve the main problems of the local public concerns was our main commitments.
If so, what you have done?
We have constructed public toilet, shopping complex for market management and vegetable market. We have constructed additional rooms in the incomplete school building and given continuity to the higher secondary school samara and performed the acts of constructing and maintaining roads in the localities different Wards of the VDC by purchasing a new tractor.
What main acts have your performed?
All those works of public concerns are the main acts for the people of Pipara Simara.
What about future plans?
By reasons of emigration to our VDC from another places the public pressure is being increased. Taking in view of such, to construct solid drainage in Ward Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 (market area) and building VDC building are the future plans.
What are may be the comprehensive thinking for the sole development of Pipara?
Simara is being identified as a town oriented village and second headquarters of the District. With a view of education, from primary schools to higher secondary schools and from sub-health post to Primary Health center are being operated. We are trying to transfer our VDC into a municipality as we have road transportation, required population, electricity, communications oldest airport of Nepal and renowned as a industrial town. To make municipality to Simar, Jitpur Bhawanipur in an integrated manner is the comprehensive development plan of this place.
If so, how much try has been done to make municipality?
To make municipality by integrating Jitpur and samara, both VDCs have decided and it has already been adopted by also the District Council. Though it has been submitted to the government, the same has not been materialized so far. However, we are hopeful that it will be declared in the near future.
Are you contesting the election again?
To contest or not to contest is a matter of party.
At last, any thing to add?
At the outset, I would like to thank Space-time daily for giving me an opportunity to put my thinking before all countrymen, despite being a lower level public representative. Moreover, I would like to express may heartfelt gratitude to the local people who have elected me to this liable and prestigious post.” [sic]
At [CB 692] as part of the Tribunal’s findings and reasons, the Tribunal said:
“There is no reliable evidence before the Tribunal of the applicant having generated an individual reputation as a campaigner against the Maoist insurgency. Therefore, the Tribunal does not accept on the evidence before it that the applicant ever undertook, or was seen to undertake, any activities of such nature or significance as defined him as an individual enemy of the Maoist insurgency.
The fact that the applicant availed himself of an opportunity to speak publicly about his political project in the local newspaper interview (in October 2001) without the Maoist insurgency even being raised suggests that the insurgency was not a significant issue in Simara or Bara at that time, or at least as far as he was concerned. The figures provided by the applicant as to the very few Maoist killings in Bara up until November 2002 makes it understandable that the subject did not arise at the time, but the fact that it did not arise in an interview with a self-described anti-Maoist campaigner does not help the applicant to argue that he ever was such a figure. As noted, the applicant was asked a number of questions that could have opened the way for him to discuss the Maoists but he did not take them up, even when asked “What may be the basis of your victory in the election?”, “… have you made some commitment in the election?”, “What about future plans?”, and “… anything to add?” There were plenty of prompts here for him to display his position about the threat of Maoism if he thought it relevant to his victory or role or mandate. The fact that he did not, and the lack of any reliable evidence of such a public stance, leaves the Tribunal with the view that the applicant has concocted the “anti-Maoist campaigner” for the purpose of this application.”
The Tribunal made certain other findings which are likewise the subject of this application for review. At [CB 675.6] the Tribunal says:
“When asked by the previously-constituted Tribunal to describe any prior contact he had had with the Maoists, [i.e. prior to receiving their letter], the applicant said he was approached on one occasion a year before receiving the letter.”
In its findings and reasons at [CB 694] the Tribunal said:
“The applicant, in evidence to the previously constituted Tribunal, said that prior to receiving this letter he had been the subject of one verbal approach from the Maoists. As noted, the applicant gave different evidence to the presently-constituted Tribunal, and to the extent that the evidence was more consistent with the content of the letter, the Tribunal dismisses it as the product of revision on the applicant’s part.”
At [CB 695] the Tribunal says:
“The applicant has claimed to the previously-constituted and presently-constituted Tribunals that the Maoists’ strategy did evolve. In evidence discussed by the Federal Court in A99 at [27] he said that they visited his wife after he moved away from Simara. He told the presently-constituted Tribunal, in a hitherto undisclosed claim, that they visited his workplace and asked after him.”
The third matter of concern was found at [CB 676.5] where the Tribunal said:
“The applicant’s evidence to the previously-constituted Tribunal thus indicated that the broader District Development Committee was the target of this harassment [i.e. because others too had been threatened] a position that he appeared to alter later on when he talked about being a unique anti-Maoist figure.”
The applicant’s claims in regard to these matters are found in the particulars to his amended application filed in court on 11 August 2006:
“1. The second respondent denied procedural fairness to the applicant
c.The Tribunal used an interview given by the applicant and reported in a Nepalese newspaper in a way that could not reasonably have been expected by the applicant, and failed to disclose its intended use of the report of that interview to the applicant. [The newspaper issue.]
Further Particulars
i.The Tribunal utilized the lack of mention of the applicant’s claimed anti-Maoist stance in that interview as evidence that there was no such stance.
2.The Tribunal made findings of fact, essential to its decision, which were entirely unsupported by probative evidence. [The no evidence issue.]
a.The Tribunal found, incorrectly, that the applicant did not mention in his first Tribunal that he had received multiple verbal threats from Maoists in the year before he received an alleged written warning.
b.The Tribunal found, incorrectly, that the applicant had mentioned alleged visits paid by Maoists to his workplace in Kathmandu for the first time at his second Tribunal hearing.
c.The Tribunal found, incorrectly, that the applicant had talked about being “a unique anti-Maoist figure”.
The newspaper issue
The applicant commences his support for the proposition that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in dealing with the newspaper article by quoting from the Full Federal Court in Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576 at [591-592]:
“Where the exercise of a statutory power attracts the requirement for procedural fairness, a person likely to be affected by the decision is entitled to put information and submissions to the decision-maker in support of an outcome that supports his or her interests. That entitlement extends to the right to rebut or qualify by further information, and comment by way of submission, upon adverse material from other sources which is put before the decision-maker. It also extends to require the decision-maker to identify to the person affected any issue critical to the decision which is not apparent from its nature or the terms of the statute under which it is made. The decision-maker is required to advise of any adverse conclusion which has been arrived at which would not obviously be open on the known material. Subject to these qualifications however, a decision-maker is not obliged to expose his or her mental processes or provisional views to comment before making the decision in question.”
Allsop J adopted the reasoning of the Full Court in Navarrete v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 1723 at [3] where he referred to material put to the Minister including draft reasons:
“Which was expressed in such a manner as to raise important and adverse factual matters beyond those which someone in the position of the applicant could reasonably have anticipated as likely to arise from the material that he understood to be before the Minister in the known statutory context.”
His Honour went on to explain (in the context of a s.501 recommendation) the scope of the advisory:
“A reasoned recommendation can be made, but it must deal with the material in a way that does not raise a consideration or issue or approach that is not obviously open or is such that a person in the position of the subject of the decision could not reasonably expect. New considerations, materially relevant mis-statements of the available material or materially relevant exaggeration or distortion of the available material, which is adverse to the person in question will raise such an issue or consideration. In these circumstances, fairness will generally demand that the person be given an opportunity to be heard because of the new consideration or because of the material mis-statement, exaggeration or distortion that has raised a new issue, in the sense that I have discussed.
… Minds may well differ as to whether opinions or conclusions drawn by the author of the recommendation go beyond the material, or whether they are just views (to use the words of Mason J in Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, 588, policy or comment) with which one simply disagrees. Care must be taken in the analysis. This is not a species of merits review or an opportunity for judicial expression of the proper decision. However, the subject of the decision is entitled to have a recommendation against him or her, or the provision of an available view against his or her interests, that is accompanied by detailed reasons for adoption, written in a way that fairly deals with the available material, in respect of which procedural fairness has been given, without material mis-statement, exaggeration or distortion.”
I am satisfied that the Tribunal’s consideration of the newspaper article and the conclusions it came to about it were material matters in relation to its decision. I set out the whole of the newspaper article at [6] because although it is quite clear from the face of the document that the applicant did not use the opportunity at this interview to express anti-Maoist views, I am of the opinion that if the context of the interview would not normally lead to the response which the Tribunal indicated it would have expected from a genuine applicant then the Tribunal would have failed to provide the applicant with procedural fairness in regard to its conclusion. It is easiest to see what is meant by this expression by taking a more extreme example. Let us say that the applicant was the captain of a football team who had been interviewed by the newspaper in regard to its victory at a local derby. If, in that interview, he had not expressed anti-Maoist sentiments and the Tribunal had considered that this reflected badly on his anti-Maoist credibility there would be no doubt that the courts would say that such a conclusion should be put to the applicant. This is because in the context of an interview about a football victory there would normally be no place for political sentiments to be expressed.
The context of this particular interview is pre-election boosterism. It is to be remembered that this is a local election for the position of a minor official in one of 48 wards of the Bara district which is one of 75 districts in Nepal. It was an area in which the Tribunal accepted there was a certain amount of Maoist activity. Presumably, some of the voters would be Maoist sympathisers. The questions are aimed at giving the applicant an opportunity to demonstrate his achievements in respect of parochial issues. I described them in arguendo as “clochemerle politics”. The applicant is clearly trying to obtain the votes not just of members of his party but of other electors to whom the operation of a primary health centre, the construction of a public toilet and additional rooms in the incomplete school building are more important than revolution. The Tribunal suggests that in this interview the applicant had many chances to display his position about the threat of Maoism but to me this just does not ring true. In my opinion the context of this interview does not naturally lead to an opportunity to discuss the Maoist insurgency; so the coming to an adverse conclusion about the applicant on these grounds without providing him an opportunity to comment is unfair. If the applicant had been asked to comment he may well have been able to convince the Tribunal that this type of interview was just not the place to make that type of remark for a number of reasons about which I have no need to speculate.
In his submissions Mr Smith, who appeared for the Minister, agreed that one had to look at the context of the claims to decide if the conclusions were not reasonably open. Mr Smith argued that the applicant claimed to be a person in fear of Maoists and that he had been singled out for harm because he was a person who was even more strongly vocal than other members of his district committee. Mr Smith claims that this indicates that the applicant had put himself up as an important person in the village and a man of outspoken views. Mr Smith suggests that the real finding of the Tribunal is found in the last sentence of the paragraph:
“The fact that he did not [make references in the article to Maoism] and the lack of any reliable evidence of such a public stance leaves the Tribunal with the view that the applicant has concocted the “anti-Maoist campagin” for the purpose of this application.”
In Mr Smith’s view that conclusion was one that was clearly open on the known material.
In my opinion whilst there is, as always, force in Mr Smith’s submission the larger finding is so influenced by the one concerning the newspaper article that it would be unsafe to say that the Tribunal’s conclusions concerning the applicant’s conduct in relation to the article had no bearing upon it. I would find that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in regard to its treatment of the newspaper article.
The no evidence issues
There are three examples of no evidence. The third example (see [10] of these reasons) is taken from a part of the Tribunal’s decision prior to its findings and reasons. In the context of the whole document I am unable to say that if a finding was made it was a critical step in the ultimate conclusion; Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at [355-377]. The respondent accepts that the matters referred to in the first and second particulars are findings for which there is no evidenciary basis. Making a finding that affects the Tribunal’s ultimate conclusion without probative evidence is jurisdictional error (Minister for Immigration v VOAO & VOAP [2005] FCAFC 50). This position had already been taken in SFGB v Minister for Immigration [2003] 77 ALD 402 at [19] and [20] but in that case the Full Bench had made it clear that the finding that was open to objection must be critical. It must be a finding in relation to a jurisdictional fact and the Minister argues that the jurisdictional fact in this particular case is whether or not the Tribunal was satisfied under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the “Act”) that the applicant was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations. So if there was other evidence upon which it could come to the conclusion that it did (that it was not so satisfied) the impugned evidence might not be critical to the decision and there would not be a jurisdictional error.
I am satisfied that the letter extracted at [3] of these reasons was of some considerable importance to the applicant’s claim. If accepted it would have provided impressive corroboration of his fears. The Tribunal makes a number of criticisms of the letter. The first relates to the spelling of the word “Ma-ost” in respect of which it states:
“The inability of the Maoists to spell their own name does not help argue that the document is genuine.”
But the Tribunal then goes on to say that there were:
“Discrepancies between facts contained in the letter and facts provided by the applicant to the Tribunal.”
But there is only one fact referred to. That fact is the admittedly incorrect one that the applicant had previously stated that he had been the subject of only one verbal approach from the Maoists.
The applicant argues that the finding in relation to the letter led to other findings, one such being that because the applicant had not raised the question of threats until they had been put in writing he had left the Tribunal with the impression that he had not spent the previous year under any threat. Another was that it gave the impression that the applicant was the only person in fear of the Maoists, which he argues led to a finding at [CB 694-695] that the applicant did not flee to Kathmandu but rather moved there to work. This finding then leads on to the second finding, which was made without evidence, that the claim that his workplace had been approached by Maoists was undisclosed. The applicant argues that these findings cascade so that they became critical to the Tribunal’s rejection of his claims:
“Including, significantly, its rejection of corroborative letters which could have been dispositive of the applicant’s case [applicant’s additional submissions].”
The respondent points out that the Tribunal made a number of findings in relation to the applicant’s situation in Nepal as set out in the Minister’s supplementary outline of submissions. These are:
“4(a) Just being a CPN-UML member alone is not enough to attract persecution in Nepal [689.2];
(b)The key issue is what resistance the local members of the CPN-UML presented to the Maoists [698.8];
(c)The applicant did not generate an individual reputation as a campaginer against the Maoist insurgency [692.2];
(d)The applicant left Simara to live in Kathmandu:
i.Because he had an opportunity to and perceived that the future there would be better [691.2]; and
ii. Not because any problems in Simara forced him to move [691.3], [697.6].
(e)The applicant has abandoned his political career [697.7];
(f)The chance of living in the middle of a civil war, should it spread to Kathmandu, does not raise any Convention-related concerns [699.7].”
The respondent concedes that the two factual issues that the applicant says were not supported by the evidence, the finding of only one threat and the finding that the Maoists did not visit his workplace were relevant to issues (c) and (d) but points out that these findings were based on a large number of other findings and reasons. Again quoting from the submissions these were:
“5(a) The applicant’s evidence regarding his relationship with the chairman was unconvincing (for a number of reasons) [691.5-692.1];
(b)The applicant did not mention the Maoists when interviewed for a newspaper article [692.5];
(c)There were very few Maoist killings in Bara up until November 2002 [692.5];
(d)The article revealed that the applicant regarded himself as a “lower level public representative” [692.9];
(e)None of the other members of the VDC or DDC were harmed [693.2] even though the Maoists never got the money they had demanded [695.8];
(f)The Maoist struggle for Bara was much more cautious and strategic than the simplistic process described by the applicant [693.7];
(g)The VDC did not do anything after the verbal threat” [694.8] or even after the written threat [694.9], [695.5];
(h)The claim that the applicant was moved to Kathmandu for protection and returned only in secrecy was not believable because:
i.The applicant appeared to take no interest in the Maoist issue [695.1];
ii. The secret meetings claim was only made recently [695.2],
iii.The applicant made 10 to 12 visits to Simara [695.2];
iv. His evidence about perceiving a duty to complete his full term after moving was convincing [695.2];
v. The VDC position was a paid one [695.3];
(i)The Maoists did not visit the applicant in Kathmandu because:
i. They never threatened him in the first place;
ii. It was inherently implausiible that they should “blow their cover” in the way suggested;
iii.It was a new claim; and
iv. It did not sit with his claim that he could not stay in Kathmandu simply because he did not feel peaceful there [696.2-3];
(j)Further reasons for this finding were::
i.The claims that he had avoided the Maoists in Kathmandu by not going out much;
ii. However, he had a senior, full-time job; and
iii.Travelled on many occasions to Simara [698.2].”
These findings go to the totality of the reasons for the Tribunal’s lack of satisfaction about a well founded fear, but I have concerns about several of them. In relation to (a) it was the applicant’s case that he was not just an ordinary CPN-UML member. It was the evidence he provided to establish that he was more than this which was impugned by the Tribunal and affected by the lack of evidence. Item (b) is a statement of the Tribunal’s findings but in my view the Tribunal would be in error if it did not consider the personal situation of the applicant. That situation so far as his resistance to the Maoists as a member of the CPN-UML was the subject of his evidence, some of which was not accepted because of jurisdictional errors of the Tribunal. In regard to the findings referred in (d)(i), my reading of the Tribunal’s reasons indicates that the applicant’s perception was at least in part founded upon his becoming
“Increasingly pessimistic about the possibility of resisting any escalation in the Maoist insurgency in Bara.”
As regards the finding referred to in (d)(ii), that finding was made because the Tribunal did not believe the applicant’s evidence. The finding (e) also depends on the finding of fact in respect of which the disbelief of the letter threatening the applicant’s life must have been a very important constituent. The finding (f) is no more than a statement of the law.
Conclusion
I have come to the conclusion that the Tribunal’s finding concerning the applicant’s well founded fear was significantly influenced by its findings in relation to the letter and in relation to the other threats from the Maoists. I do not think that every finding of the Tribunal would have been infected by these problems, e.g. the Tribunal’s rejection of the applicant’s statement that all his return visits to Simara were made in secret, but I am unable to find any independent and entirely uninfected ground upon which the Tribunal relied. In the circumstances having found jurisdictional error in the way in which the Tribunal reached its conclusions I am satisfied that the errors went to a jurisdictional fact, the finding of a lack of satisfaction, and that therefore the decision should not stand. I propose to make my usual declarations and orders and will be prepared to grant pregorative writs if requested.
I certify that the preceding twenty-three (23) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM.
Associate:
Date:
7
1