SZNFJ v Minister for Immigration
[2010] FMCA 301
•14 May 2010
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZNFJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2010] FMCA 301 |
| MIGRATION – Persecution – review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – visa – protection visa – refusal – matter turns on its own facts. |
| Migration Act 1958, ss.91R, 424A, 474 |
| Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476 |
| Applicant: | SZNFJ |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 135 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Cameron FM |
| Hearing date: | 28 April 2010 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 28 April 2010 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 14 May 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant appeared in person. |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Ms A. Mitchelmore |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The application be dismissed.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 135 of 2010
| SZNFJ |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The applicant is a citizen of China where, he claims, he was detained and interrogated on several occasions and his business closed down because he practised Falungong.
The applicant claims to fear persecution in China because of his past and continued association with Falungong.
After his arrival in Australia on 12 November 2004, the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa. This was refused by a delegate of the first respondent (“Minister”) on 20 December 2007. The applicant then applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) for a review of that departmental decision. The applicant was unsuccessful before the Tribunal and has applied to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.
The Tribunal decision the subject of these proceedings is the third such decision relating to the applicant. There was an initial Tribunal decision signed on 26 February 2008 which was quashed by this Court on
2 July 2008. On 8 January 2009 the Tribunal again affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate. That decision was quashed by this Court on 24 April 2009.
In these judicial review proceedings the Court’s task is to determine whether the Tribunal’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error as that is the only basis upon which it can be set aside: s.474 Migration Act1958 (“Act”); Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476.
For the reasons which follow, the application will be dismissed.
Background facts
The facts alleged in support of the applicant’s claim for a protection visa are set out on pages 4 – 28 of the Tribunal’s decision (Court Book (“CB”) pages 471 – 495). Relevant factual allegations are summarised below.
Visa application
In a statutory declaration dated 15 November 2007 provided in support of his application for a protection visa, the applicant made the following claims:
a)in 1995 he started a wholesale shoe company and by 2003 he had 25 or 26 staff members;
b)in March 1998 he became involved with Falungong after a doctor recommended he exercise for his diabetes. He met other practitioners in a park and found the exercises helped reduce his medication dosage. He continued exercising through 1998 and 1999;
c)
from September 1998 the applicant recommended Falungong practice to his staff members. He provided an incentive of
50 Yuan per month to staff members who practised Falun Gong and because of this half of his staff became practitioners;
d)in October 2001 a member of the local neighbourhood committee approached the applicant to tell him that Falungong practice was made illegal. He ignored this warning and continued to practise because he felt it was very good for him;
e)in October 2001 another member of the neighbourhood committee approached him to tell him to report to the local Public Security Bureau (“PSB”) office because of his involvement in Falungong;
f)the next day the applicant attended the PSB office. He was told that they knew he practised Falungong and they held him without food or water for a day to give him time to think about his involvement with Falungong;
g)he was released in the evening and permitted to return home, however, he was ordered to return the next day. He returned to the PSB station and his treatment from the previous day was repeated for the next three days;
h)on the fourth day he decided not to report to the PSB as his business was suffering. He decided to leave Shanghai and go to Wenzhou, where most shoe suppliers are based. He stayed in Wenzhou for one week;
i)during this time he rang his wife who told him that the police had come looking for him so he decided to remain in Wenzhou for one year, returning in mid December 2002. He continued his business in Wenzhou, staying in motels and not contacting friends or relatives;
j)less than a week after the applicant returned to Shanghai, two police officers came to his house and detained him at Yang Pu police station because he was considered an organiser of Falungong. He was questioned and “brainwashed” about Falungong for fifteen days;
k)on the last day of his detention, the applicant was told that he must co-operate with the PSB, that he needed to reform his company and teach his employees that Falungong was bad and he had to report to his local police station every day;
l)he reported for a few days. Each time he was kept in an interview room for the whole day. He knew he could not run his business if this kept happening. He also discovered that his bank account had been frozen as the PSB had been looking into his finances. He was unable to pay his employees and his company ceased operation in March 2003;
m)after the closure of his business he was told he had been fined 680,000 Yuan for illegal invoices. He paid 300,000 Yuan and was told that if he did not pay the remainder he would be sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. He was given one year to pay but did not make any further payments;
n)after his release, he reported for a few days to his local police station but then decided to leave his home area. He moved to an apartment owned by his brother because he believed that he could be safe there. He stayed there until he departed for Australia;
o)a friend assisted him to leave China by getting him a new passport and a visa which was granted in early November 2004;
p)after his arrival in Australia he practised Falungong in private for about a year until he discovered some practitioners in a park in Parramatta. He practised with them until he was detained and taken to Villawood Immigration Detention Centre; and
q)he cannot return to China because:
i)he may be arrested at the airport;
ii)if he returns to live with his wife and son people will find out he has returned;
iii)he cannot live in his brother’s apartment because he would need to register at the local PSB office and show his national ID card and this could lead to the PSB finding out about his involvement with Falungong; and
iv)he has no one who can provide him with protection in any other part of China.
Review application
In a statutory declaration dated 17 January 2008 and submitted to the Tribunal, the applicant stated that:
a)although he studied Falungong for many years, he did not claim to be an expert and it is usual in Chinese culture to be humble so he forgot to tell the Minister’s delegate that he was still a beginner in his understanding of Falungong. He also said that Master Li’s books are very complex and he is still studying their full meaning;
b)he realised that Falungong had been banned in July 1999 when he was approached by two members of the neighbourhood committee while practising with other people in a park. They said that any person found practising or distributing information about Falungong would be severely punished;
c)after this he practised alone and tried to find a private and quiet spot in the park but did not practise as much as he had before he was warned;
d)he thought his employees were not detained because they were not public and well-known Falungong practitioners. Many of them stopped practising after it was banned and others only practised privately;
e)he applied for his passport approximately one year after his release from detention but did not need PSB clearance because he had made a promise when he was released not to practise Falungong. He did not have any problems with the authorities when he applied for his passport; and
f)when he arrived in Australia, he did not know that he could apply for a protection visa as he did not speak English, did not understand the law in Australia, his brothers had different opinions and one of them told him it was not possible to become a refugee in Australia.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal as first constituted on
31 January 2008 where he emphasized that he gained no information about refugee status in Australia from within his network of family and acquaintances and that he “dared not” make any enquiries about it.
In written submissions dated 5 September 2008 made to the secondly constituted Tribunal, the applicant stated:
a)in about September 1999 he was warned by the neighbourhood committee that he must stop practising Falungong; and
b)when he returned to Shanghai and was detained again by PSB officers, he underwent “brainwashing” and was threatened with gaol or reform through labour. He was released but told that his company would be investigated. The investigation resulted in the imposition of a huge fine and the closing down of his company. He was told that this was a result of his involvement in “politics”.
At the second Tribunal hearing, on 8 and 29 September 2008 and
21 October 2008, the applicant said:
a)he spent a lot of time in Wenzhou and Guangzhou because of his company. He tried to practise Falungong in his spare time;
b)he heard about the public ban on Falungong in 2001;
c)the local neighbourhood committee found out that he was practising Falungong in secret;
d)he spent about a year in Wenzhou from about October 2001 until about November 2002. He returned to his home around late November 2002. He was detained in December 2002 for fifteen days;
e)after his release, he lived at home for one month before moving to his brother’s apartment on 15 March 2003;
f)he could not recall the last time he practised Falungong in public;
g)if nobody was present at the park he would sometimes practise there in a corner, even after Falungong was banned. He said the situation was not as serious at that time;
h)on one occasion whilst at the park, he was warned by the authorities not to practise Falungong. Then in September 1999 he was visited at his home and warned again not to practise Falungong. Also, in October 2001 he was approached by the authorities as he was practising in private;
i)he did not approach the Falun Dafa Organisation in Australia. He was scared of approaching anyone because he did not have permanent residency and did not want to talk to other people. He felt he might be discovered and deported; and
j)he was advised by two migration agents, after his arrival in Australia, that he would not be successful if he applied for a protection visa on the basis of his Falungong practice.
In a statutory declaration dated 9 October 2008 the applicant stated the following:
a)
he did not lodge an application for a protection visa until
1 November 2007 because he did not properly understand whether he could apply for a protection visa. During his first day in detention he spoke with other detainees who were Falungong practitioners and they told him that he could in fact apply for a protection visa;
b)
he was approached by members of the local neighbourhood committee in September 1999, not October 1999, as he incorrectly stated in his statutory declaration of
15 November 2007;
c)he ran away from home when he stopped attending the interviews with the PSB in 2001;
d)to the extent that his statutory declaration suggested that in 2003 he stopped reporting contrary to the orders of the PSB, this was not correct. He was not required to report for more than the three or four days that he actually attended the PSB offices; and
e)after he was no longer required to attend the PSB offices in 2003, he remained with his family until he discovered that the authorities had frozen his assets, had fined him and had threatened him if he did not pay the fine.
On 30 October 2008 the secondly constituted Tribunal sent the applicant a s.424A notice. The applicant responded on
10 November 2008 with the following additional claims:
a)he was not approached by members of the neighbourhood committee at the park in July/August 1999. The first time he was approached was in September 1999 in front of his home; and
b)he was first aware of the ban on Falungong in July or September 1999.
In a letter from a Ms F. Milne, dated 15 July 2009, to the thirdly constituted Tribunal, it was stated that:
a)the applicant’s memory was deteriorating; and
b)individuals who do not have high levels of understanding of Falungong theory are not spared persecution.
The applicant also submitted material about Falungong, medical evidence that he was suffering hypertension and diabetes and evidence that memory loss can occur due to diabetes.
At the third Tribunal hearing, on 9 July 2009, the applicant said that:
a)ever since his arrival in Australia in November 2004 he had been living with his brothers;
b)he stopped encouraging his staff to do Falungong exercises after it was banned in China;
c)after the ban, he practised Falungong near his residential area in a corner of a wooded area;
d)he did not realise the situation had become tenser for Falungong practitioners because he was not in touch with other practitioners and was not sharing information with them;
e)in relation to being detained in October 2001, he said that he was released after three days on an undertaking that he report every day to the police station. He was not detained overnight at all. The police had just told him to keep coming in every day. Thinking this arrangement would be endless, he had stopped reporting to the police station on the fourth day and went to Wenzhou instead;
f)in relation to his claim that some of his staff had informed on him, he stated that it was ‘possible’ that they had. He said he was just speculating;
g)while he was in Wenzhou, his focus was on finding sources of commodities for his company so he did not practise Falungong there. Additionally, as he was not familiar with Wenzhou he did not go out to find Falungong practitioners. He also did not want to do anything political;
h)he returned to his home because had been away for almost a year. He needed more clothes because the weather was getting cold. He also felt the issue had to be resolved and he had to face it. He did not contact or report to the PSB after he returned to Shanghai;
i)in 2003 the authorities had sent accountants to the applicant’s company. The accountants found some irregularities in the financial record-keeping. He was fined 600,000 Yuan. The authorities froze his bank account and confiscated all the money in it as part payment of the fine but he still owed 20,000 to 30,000 Yuan [approx $3,170 to $4,750];
j)he had no problems with the police or the authorities generally during the period in which he was living in Shanghai with his brother. His case was “basically finalised” and he was “comparatively safe after being released” in December 2002; and
k)since his release from immigration detention in Australia he had practised Falungong exercises at home most days. He also went to Burwood for occasional study sessions. He had stopped going to Parramatta because it was too far and the numbers were declining. He had also been distributing leaflets and intended to go on a march.
The Tribunal’s decision and reasons
After discussing the claims made by the applicant and the evidence before it, the Tribunal found that it was not satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951, amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1967 (“Convention”). The Tribunal’s decision was based on the following findings and reasons:
a)the Tribunal accepted that the applicant did Falungong exercises before July 1999 and that some of his employees also did so in the 1998-1999 period. Based on evidence before it, the Tribunal stated that it was legal to practise Falungong at this time;
b)referring to country information, the Tribunal considered that it was not implausible that the applicant had been open about his Falungong affiliation and that before it was banned he encouraged his staff to do the Falungong exercises. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant did Falungong exercises before July 1999 and that some of his employees also did so in the 1998-1999 period;
c)the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was truthful when he claimed that he did Falungong exercises in public in 2001, providing the following reasons:
i)the slight reasons the applicant claimed to have had for doing the exercises in a public place, at a time of severe government crackdown, showed a disregard for his safety that was not consistent with any of his other behaviour; and
ii)having regard to country information, the Tribunal stated that the applicant’s explanation for his lack of awareness of the situation facing Falungong adherents following the ban was implausible in light of the official government ongoing propaganda campaign;
d)the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had been truthful when he claimed to have come to the attention of the PSB in 2001 on suspicion of being a Falungong practitioner because:
i)the applicant’s untruthfulness regarding his claim of doing Falungong exercise in public in 2001 and his claim that this was the likely reason why the PSB questioned him cast doubt on the plausibility of his claim to have come to the PSB’s attention;
ii)the applicant did not claim to have been harmed in any way by the police;
iii)country information suggested that in 2001 the PSB would probably have searched his home for Falungong materials and could and would generally have treated him much more harshly if they had had any suspicions at all that he was a Falungong practitioner; and
iv)the fact that the applicant breached an instruction to continue reporting daily to the police station and disappeared in the manner he did would have had the clear potential to increase police suspicions about him;
e)the Tribunal referred to the applicant’s evidence that his priority while in Wenzhou was to conduct business activities and that he rarely did Falungong exercises even in the privacy of his hotel room and inferred it was by choice rather than out of fear of persecution that the applicant’s commitment to or interest in Falungong was very slight, being limited to occasionally doing some exercises;
f)for the following reasons, the Tribunal did not accept that the police were seeking the applicant while he was in Wenzhou or that the PSB had any suspicion about him in relation to Falungong when he returned to live in Shanghai in 2002:
i)it considered implausible the claim that the applicant would have chosen to leave Shanghai in the manner he did, and then have chosen to return there, if he believed that he was suspected of being a Falungong practitioner by the Shanghai police; and
ii)it did not consider it plausible that the applicant would have willingly returned to Shanghai simply because he was reassured by his wife that the police had not enquired about him in the previous “two weeks”;
g)the Tribunal did not consider the applicant’s claim to have been detained for fifteen days in late 2002 in relation to Falungong to be plausible for the following reasons:
i)it was not satisfied that the PSB regarded the applicant as a practitioner before 2002;
ii)the applicant’s account of his treatment while detained for fifteen days was not consistent with evidence from independent sources about the extremely harsh treatment of people believed to be Falungong practitioners in 2002, particularly those who were regarded as playing an influential or organising role as he would have been if his claims were true;
iii)the applicant had no reliable basis for believing that anyone had made allegations that he did anything illegal associated with Falungong. He rarely did the exercises, despite having the opportunity to do so in Wenzhou. The authorities could have had no reliable evidence that he had any connection with Falungong after it was banned. It therefore seemed illogical that the PSB in Shanghai might have had any suspicions about him, let alone grounds for increased suspicions, in late 2002;
iv)the Tribunal noted that the law allowed for Falungong practitioners to be prevented from leaving the country. It then stated that if the PSB had regarded the applicant as sufficiently culpable that they detained him for fifteen days and subsequently closed down his company because he was involved in an illegal “cult”, it appeared unlikely that the authorities would have issued him with a passport and allowed him to leave China without any difficulties;
v)it referred to reports from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that many Chinese documents are forged and that irregular or improper issue of documents is widespread; and
vi)the Tribunal then stated, in relation to the photocopy of a document purporting to be a Public Security Administrative Punishment Decision from the Shanghai PSB at Yang Pu Substation issued on 25 December 2002, that it was unable to establish to its satisfaction that this document was a copy of a genuine official document as it was a photocopy and referred only to the applicant as practising Falungong in a period when it was legal to do so. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered it odd if, as the applicant claimed, he was suspected of having encouraged his employees to become Falungong practitioners after Falungong was banned, that there was no reference to this. Consequently, the Tribunal gave this document no weight;
h)the Tribunal was satisfied that the PSB had no basis for suspecting the applicant of having any involvement with Falungong in 2004, that the PSB had not been given information by the applicant’s staff that he had encouraged them to practise Falungong after it was banned and that the applicant was not regarded as a Falungong practitioner by the Chinese authorities when he came to Australia;
i)the Tribunal stated that the information the applicant gave to support his claim that the reason he was fined and his company’s bank account frozen was his Falungong background was vague and its source and reliability were unknown;
j)the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant may have done Falungong exercises for his health before it was banned in 1999, however, it was satisfied that his interest in doing the exercises subsided after 1999. The Tribunal was satisfied that between 1999 and 2004 the applicant had no contact at all with Falungong practitioners and that he chose to do the exercises, if at all, only rarely. The Tribunal did not consider that the applicant had been truthful when he claimed to have been questioned in 2001 or detained in 2002 for reasons associated with Falungong and did not accept that these events occurred;
k)the Tribunal stated that as it did not accept that the applicant was identified by the authorities as a Falungong practitioner after Falungong was banned in 1999, it was satisfied that there was no record of this with the PSB;
l)the Tribunal noted that, beyond the applicant’s own assertions, reliable evidence from any informed observer had not been submitted that the applicant undertook any Falungong-related activities in public during his first twenty-six months in Australia and thus the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was participating in Falungong practice sessions in public places before February 2007;
m)if the applicant did distribute leaflets in 2009, the Tribunal was not satisfied that he participated in that conduct in Australia for any reason other than to strengthen his claims to be a refugee and thus it disregarded that conduct pursuant to s.91R(3) of the Act;
n)although the Tribunal accepted that the applicant was doing Falungong exercises with other detainees while in immigration detention, beyond the applicant’s assertions it had no reliable evidence that he was doing Falungong exercises in private on a regular or frequent basis before or after his detention;
o)the Tribunal accepted that the applicant might wish to do Falungong exercises in private occasionally for health purposes if he returned to China. It noted that the authorities were highly unlikely ever to become aware of this. Thus the chance was remote that the applicant would face persecution in China if he occasionally did exercises in private; and
p)if the applicant had been fined or otherwise penalised for profiting from corruption in his business activities, the Tribunal was satisfied that this was unrelated to a perception of him as a Falungong adherent. It was of the view that any such penalty imposed on the applicant in relation to his business was not imposed for a Convention reason, nor more harshly applied for a Convention reason, but relied on laws of general application relating to corruption.
Proceedings in this Court
In his application commencing these proceedings the applicant alleged that:
(1)The Decision is affected by legal error
and was therefore “invalid”.
The allegations made in the application were unparticularised, however, at the hearing the applicant submitted that the Tribunal as thirdly constituted had simply adopted the second Tribunal decision and, impliedly, had failed to conduct a proper review and to exercise its jurisdiction.
The second Tribunal decision, which was signed on 8 January 2009, affirmed the delegate’s decision on the basis that the Tribunal did not find the applicant to be credible on some key aspects of his claims. These have been summarised above at [8]-[14]. The reasons given by the secondly constituted Tribunal for its conclusion that the applicant was not truthful or credible were:
a)the applicant’s knowledge Falungong was only that of a beginner, and it was the Tribunal’s view that he was first introduced to Falungong when he was detained by the Minister’s department and taken to Villawood Immigration Detention Centre;
b)the applicant gave various and conflicting stories concerning when and whether he was approached by the neighbourhood watch committee and told not to practise Falungong and when he heard of the ban on Falungong. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had ever been approached in relation his claimed practice of Falungong in China;
c)the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had been detained for fifteen days in 2002 because he was a Falungong practitioner. The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s brother stated that the applicant had been detained for seven days;
d)the applicant gave inconsistent evidence concerning events following his release from his fifteen-day detention and some of his evidence was contradicted by his brother’s evidence;
e)the Tribunal did not accept that the PSB had ever been looking for the applicant because they believed him to be a Falungong practitioner. In the Tribunal’s view, he would not have risked returning to his home in Shanghai in 2002 if they had had been;
f)the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant would have waited until November 2004 to leave China if he had been the target of persecution by the Chinese authorities since October 2001. Moreover, he was able to leave China on a passport in his own name which the Tribunal considered to be implausible if he had been sought by the Chinese authorities for his involvement in Falungong;
g)the applicant said that one of the factors causing a delay in the lodgment of his protection visa application was the advice he had received from his first migration agent relating to documentary material in China which might have supported his claims. The documents were never provided to the migration agent as requested, and, on the basis that he had never been targeted or detained by the Chinese authorities for involvement in Falungong, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not have such documents;
h)
the document purporting to be a Public Security Administrative Punishment Decision from the Shanghai Public Security Bureau at Yang Pu Substation was not provided to the Tribunal until
25 January 2008 and the Tribunal concluded that had the applicant been in possession of such a document in
December 2004 he would have provided it to his migration agent and lodged a protection visa application at that time. It was the Tribunal’s view that the applicant did not lodge a protection visa application shortly after his arrival in Australia because he was not a Falungong practitioner at that time and only became one following his detention at Villawood; and
i)the applicant did not begin to practise Falungong publicly or establish any contact with Falungong practitioners in Australia until about a year after his arrival which, in the experience of the Tribunal, was not the conduct of a genuine and sincere practitioner of Falungong. It was the Tribunal’s view that if the applicant had been a Falungong practitioner he would have approached other Falungong practitioners very soon after he arrived in Australia. It concluded that he had not been a Falungong practitioner in China.
A summary of the third Tribunal decision appears above at [18]. Importantly, the Tribunal as thirdly constituted accepted that the applicant had been a Falungong practitioner in China before July 1999 and that some of his employees had also been practitioners in the
1998-1999 period. However, it concluded that the applicant’s commitment to and interest in Falungong was very slight and limited to occasional exercises and that the Chinese authorities could have had no reliable evidence that he had any connection with Falungong after it was banned in 1999. The Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s claims that he came to the attention of the PSB in 2001 on suspicion of being a Falungong practitioner. For this reason, the Tribunal did not accept his related claims.
Significantly, the applicant himself told the Tribunal as thirdly constituted that he had no problems with the authorities by 2004 and the Tribunal was satisfied that the PSB had no basis for suspecting that he had any involvement in Falungong in 2004. It was satisfied and that he was not regarded by the Chinese authorities as a Falungong practitioner when he came to Australia.
A comparison of the second and third Tribunal decisions reveals that the Tribunal’s third affirmation of the delegate’s decision was based on reasons significantly different from those on which the second decision was based. In short, the second Tribunal decision was based on a finding that the applicant had never been a Falungong practitioner, while the third Tribunal decision accepted that the applicant had been a Falungong practitioner but concluded that his practice was not of a sort, or at a time, which attracted the adverse attention of the Chinese authorities.
Moreover, the third Tribunal decision evidences a detailed and conscientious consideration of the information and submissions which the applicant placed before the Tribunal at all stages of his review. I conclude that it was not just going through the motions in order to give the appearance of considering these matters. This conclusion is reinforced by the detailed nature of the reasons which the Tribunal gave for its decision to affirm the delegate’s decision for a third time.
Consequently, I find that the applicant has failed to show that the third Tribunal decision is affected by jurisdictional error on the basis that it was no more than an adoption or repetition of the Tribunal’s second decision on the applicant’s review.
Conclusion
Jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal has not been demonstrated.
Consequently, the application will be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding twenty-eight (28) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Cameron FM
Associate:
Date: 14 May 2010
0
1
1