SZQWT v Minister for Immigration - [2012] FMCA 463

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZQWT v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2012] FMCA 463

MIGRATION – Review of decision of Independent Merits Reviewer – whether Reviewer’s reasoning irrational or illogical – where applicant claimed Reviewer failed to put relevant issues to applicant – where order made allowing production of transcript of interviews – where no transcript produced – whether issues were part of reason for decision – whether Reviewer failed to put relevant and determinative issues to the applicant – where applicant raised issue of grandfather’s deportation from Iran as Faili Kurd – where Reviewer found no evidence of such deportations and raised concern with applicant – where applicant claimed common knowledge that evidence of deportations readily available – whether error of fact within jurisdiction – whether Reviewer failed to consider applicant’s claims.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.36(2)
Evidence Act 1995, s.144

Minister for Immigration v SZMDS [2010] 240 CLR 611
SZOOR v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2012] FCAFC 58
Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration & Anor [1994] 34 ALD 347
Minister for Immigration & Anor v SZNPG [2010] FCAFC 51

Applicant:

SZQWT

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

MARA MOUSTAFINE IN THE CAPACITY OF THE INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER

File Number:

SYG 2695 of 2011

Judgment of:

Raphael FM

Hearing date:

30 May 2012

Date of Last Submission:

30 May 2012

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

4 June 2012

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr R Nair

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Turner Coulson Immigration Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mr T Reilly

Solicitors for the Respondents:

DLA Piper Australia

ORDERS

Application dismissed.
Applicant to pay the First Respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $6,240.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2695 of 2011

SZQWT

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

MARA MOUSTAFINE IN THE CAPACITY OF THE INDEPENDENT MERITS REVIEWER

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant seeks review of a decision of an Independent Merits Reviewer[1] who reported to the Minister on 10 October 2011 that she found that the applicant did not meet the criterion for a protection visa set out in s.36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The applicant was an unauthorised boat arrival who was placed in detention on Christmas Island on 18 August 2010. He claimed to be a Faili Kurd born in Baghdad but living since his first year in Iran in Qazvin Province. He claimed to fear arbitrary arrest, detention, physical mistreatment and deportation or disappearance should he return to Iran for reasons of his ethnicity and race as well as his perceived nationality as an Iraqi. It was claimed that he would suffer state imposed pervasive discrimination without access to health care, normally available education, the ownership or renting of property, freedom of movement or residence or right to vote. His application for refugee status assessment was considered by the department but declined on 7 November 2011. On 4 March 2011 he applied for independent merits review of that decision.
[1] “Reviewer”
At his entry interview the applicant told that he was born in Qazvin Province Iran on 29 June 1980 of Faili Kurdish ethnicity, Shia Muslim religion and spoke only Persian. At the RSA interview he claimed he had been born in Baghdad. He told that he could not speak Kurdish Faili because his parents taught him Farsi and the people in the area in which he lived only spoke Farsi. He worked as an agricultural labourer. He repeated his claim to have been born in Baghdad to the IMR.
The nature of the applicant’s claims to have been persecuted in Iran and his fear of further persecution should he return are not relevant to these reasons because the IMR’s finding that she was not satisfied that he was a Faili Kurd was based upon her non acceptance of his evidence on matters unrelated to that alleged persecution. For that reason those details will not be rehearsed here.
The applicant’s identity was the central issue in the review and this was explained to the applicant:
“[46]I told the claimants that a central issue for me was the question of their identity and whether they were who they claimed to be – stateless and undocumented Faili Kurds with origins in Iran then Iraq, rather than citizens of Iran. I noted that they had not provided any documents, including the passport they left Iran on or the green card they claimed they had, so I only had their word that they were who they claimed to be. However, while they claimed to be Faili Kurds, neither of them spoke Kurdish Faili and they came from Qazvin, a province which was not predominantly Faili Kurdish. Moreover, elements of their accounts of their family’s experience in Iran did not accord with country information and there were some inconsistencies in their evidence.
[47]I noted several issues, where information had been introduced for the first time in the claimants’ interviews with me, which had been not presented at earlier interviews or in their RSA statements; in particular that:
·    Their family, along with other Faili Kurds had been expelled from Iran by the Shah in 1970 – of which I had been unable to find any evidence – then went to Iraq and then came back to Iran.
·    Their father came to work secretly in Qazvin in the 1970s then went back to Iraq before returning in the 1980s.
·    Their parents spoke Farsi, as well as Kurdish and Arabic before they came to Iran, while at their RSA interviews they said their parents did not know Farsi before they came to Iran but learned it after their arrival and did not speak Arabic.
·    They lived in the Jahrom Camp when they first arrived in Iran. I noted the comment by one of them that they had not been asked this question, but it remained an issue in my mind.
[48]Significantly, the information each of them had presented about green cards was inconsistent with independent country information in this matter, I noted that the green card issue was important in the context of my concern about their identity and whether they were who they claimed to be or whether they might, in fact, be Iranian citizens.”
It should be explained that the Reviewer dealt with this applicant and his brother’s review concurrently, hence the reference to claimants.
In her findings and reasons the Reviewer stated at [96] [CB 149]:
“[96]However, I consider that the claimant’s evidence on a number of issues central to his claims which was variously, inconsistent with independent country information, implausible and unsupported to be of a different order. It raises serious doubts about the claimant’s credibility and cannot be disregarded in assessing his claims.”
She turned first to the green card issue which she dealt with at some length from [97 – 104] [CB 149 – 150] before concluding at [105] [CB 150]:
“[105] In light of the above inconsistencies, I am not satisfied that the claimant and his family were ever Iraqi refugees in Iran or that his father ever had a green card. Moreover, for reasons outlined below I do not accept that he or his family were Faili Kurds at all.”
The reasoning between [106] and [110] supports the finding that the applicant was not a Faili Kurd. It is these paragraphs which are impugned by the application before me commenced in this court on 25 November 2011:
“[106] As I put to the claimant at interview, while he claimed to be of Faili Kurdish ethnicity, I was concerned that he did not speak Faili Kurdish and came from the predominantly Persian province of Qazvin. I do not find convincing the claimant’s various explanations that he was unable to speak Kurdish Faili because he was raised in Iran and his interactions were with Persians; that while his parents spoke Kurdish at home, they told him not to speak it so his ethnicity would not be identified; that his parents knew, but did not speak, Kurdish Faili because people in their area only spoke Farsi; that while they only learned to speak Farsi after arriving in Iran, they taught him Farsi; and that even though he knew a little bit of Kurdish, he could not practice it and forgot it.
[107]Nor do I find it plausible that a rural family of Faili Kurds, deported from Iraq with thousands of others in the 1980s, would not go to live in the culturally and linguistically familiar and socially supportive environment of Ilam province, among Iranians of Faili Kurdish ethnicity and other deportees, but settle instead in a village in the predominantly Persian Qazvin province. While the claimant said the reason for this was that his father had worked for three years in a factory kitchen there in the 1970s, for reasons set out in paragraph 109 below, I do not accept this.
[108]My scepticism is compounded by the claimant’s vague response when asked who the Faili Kurds were and his implausible account of Faili Kurds, his great-grandfather included, being evicted from Iran at the time of Reza Shah. No comment was offered when I put to the claimant and his brother that I had been unable to find any evidence of such an eviction in the historical records.
[109]I do not find credible the claimant’s explanation that the reason he introduced for the first time at interview the information that his father went from Iraq to work in Qazvin for three years in the 1970s was that he had not been asked earlier. No comment was offered when I raised this again at the end of the interview as an issue of concern. No did he offer any explanation about the inconsistency between his evidence at his IMR interview that his parents spoke Farsi before they arrive din Iran in 1981 and at his RSA interview that they did not. In this context, I find it far-fetched that, if his father was, as claimed, a Faili Kurd working on a farm outside Baghdad, he would be in a position to meet a Farsi-speaking Iranian trader in Baghdad, who would find him employment, for which he had no skills, in the kitchen of the Bosch factory in Qazvin, farm from the Iran-Iraq border, even if he could speak Farsi, which I do not accept. Rather, it is my view that this account was contrived in order to explain why the claimant’s family lived in Qazvin.
[110]In view of the inconsistencies, implausibilities and shifts in the claimant’s evidence outlined above, I am not satisfied that the claimant has been truthful about his identity, status or experiences in Iran. I am not satisfied that the claimant and his family were Iraqi refugees living in Iran after being deported from Iraq, nor that they are Faili Kurds, stateless or undocumented. I consider that the claimant is an Iranian citizen from Qazvin province who is not of Faili Kurdish ethnicity.”
There are four grounds of application. The first is:
“1.The second respondent (“the reviewer”) did not accord the applicant natural justice and procedural fairness. The purported determination and recommendation was not based on evidence. In the alternative, the purported determination and recommendation was irrational, illogical or not based on findings or inferences of facts supported by logical grounds.
Particulars
i) and ii) There is here set out extracts from the findings at [106], [107], [110] extracted at [6] of these reasons.
iii)It is clear that the reviewer’s finding that it was implausible that the applicant would be unable to speak “Kurdish Faili” – notwithstanding the reasons provided by the applicant – was both material and crucial to the determination the reviewer purported to make.
iv)It is also clear that a reviewer’s finding that it was it was implausible that the applicant’s family (a rural family of Faili Kurds) would have settled in a village in the predominantly Persian Qazvin province was both material and crucial to the determination the reviewer purported to make.
(v)These findings were not based on rationally probative evidence. They were mere suspicion or speculation, mere conjecture.
vi)The purported determination and recommendation was irrational, illogical or not based on findings of inferences of fact supported by logical grounds.”
The applicant argues that the Reviewer acted on an assumption that all children of Faili Kurdish ethnicity born in Iran would grow up to speak as well as understand their native dialect. He argues that there was no evidence before the Reviewer of this connection and no evidence from which the Reviewer could draw the inference. He argues that he provided an explanation that whilst his parents spoke Kurdish at home they told him he was not to speak it so that his ethnicity could not be identified and that he was not taught Kurdish and had forgotten any that he had ever learned. It was not sufficient for the Reviewer to find these arguments not convincing. There was no probative evidence before her on which she could have rejected the explanations or evidence from which she could have drawn the relevant inferences.
I accept that the finding made by the Reviewer was a critical finding in the sense considered by the High Court in Minister for Immigration v SZMDS [2010] 240 CLR 611[2] at [51]. The differences in the dicta in that case between the members of the court was recognised by Rares J in SZOOR v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2012] FCAFC 58[3], a decision of the Full Bench Rares, McKerracher and Reeves JJ at [2]. After considering these differences his Honour said at [15]:
[15]The approach to irrationality or illogicality dictated by the authorities in the High Court appears to be that even if the decision-maker’s articulation of how and why he or she went from the facts to the decision is not rational or logical, if someone else could have done so on the evidence, the decision is not one that will be set aside. It is only if no decision-maker could have followed that path, and despite the reasons given by the actual decision-maker, that the decision will be found to have been made by reason of a jurisdictional error.”
[2] “SZMDS”
[3] “SZOOR”
His Honour’s views were reinforced by those of McKerracher J at [85]:
“[85]What was said by Heydon J at [78], cited above (at [54]), in my view, while differently expressed, is not at odds with what was said by Crennan and Bell JJ. Illogicality such as to amount to jurisdictional error will not be shown where the point is merely one upon which reasonable minds may differ or where it cannot be said that there is no evidence before the Tribunal upon which the decision could be based. Illogicality will not amount to jurisdictional error in every case. It must be such as to affect the decision. See, for example, SZOCT (at [84]) per Nicholas J and SZMWQ (at [55]) per Rares J.”
These views posit the test which I shall apply to the submissions made by the applicant because they constitute binding authority upon me of the proper interpretation of the High Court’s decision.
There are two parts to the submission. The first relates to the Reviewer’s reaction to the fact that the applicant could not speak Kurdish Faili and the second her reaction to the applicant’s story that his parents had gone to live in a village in the predominantly Persian Qazvin Province. I do not regard the way in which the question of language was put to the applicant and addressed by the Reviewer as suggesting that the Reviewer imposed an illogical criteria that all children should be taken to understand and speak the language of their parents. Such a criteria might well be considered irrational and not conforming to known facts. The inability of most Diaspora Jews born to Yiddish speaking parents between 1930 and 1950, who to their distress, neither speak nor understand more than a few words of that expressive language is but one example of the falsity of such an assumption. But it seems to me that the Reviewer did not do this. She posited only that she would have expected the applicant to have spoken Faili. She gave him the opportunity to explain why he did not and she did not find that explanation convincing. That is her assessment of the explanation. It is the lack of satisfaction with the explanation that is a constituent of her finding about his credibility, not the fact that he does not speak Kurdish. This seems to me to be the fundamental misconception made by the applicant as to the Reviewer’s reasons for her decision. There is no illogicality in her rejecting the applicant’s explanation, this is done all the time by Reviewers and Tribunals. It is the essence of their job.
The second aspect of the Reviewer’s findings related to the place that the applicant’s family chose to live. She did not find it plausible that they would settle in a village in the predominantly Persian Qazvin Province. Once again, the Reviewer is making a decision upon the likelihood of something happening, i.e. upon credibility. She is not saying that all Kurds leaving Iraq go and live in Kurdish ghettos, which would have been an illogical finding unsupported by evidence. What she was doing was expressing some concern about this aspect of the story to the applicant and inviting him to provide an explanation. Once again the explanation given by the applicant was found not to be convincing as set out in [109] of the decision record. This is a decision made by the Reviewer in relation to the applicant’s credibility that is one for the Reviewer par excellence. It does not seem to me to involve those issues canvassed in SZMDS or SZOOR but if it did then I would accept the submission made by Mr Reilly on behalf of the Minister that it was a form of reasoning about which reasonable minds could differ and so it could not be said to be illogical. The first ground must therefore fail.
The second ground of application was:
“The reviewer did not accord the applicant natural justice and procedural fairness. The purported determination and recommendation was not based on evidence. In the alternative, the purported determination and recommendation was irrational, illogical or not based on findings of inferences of fact supported by logical grounds.
Particulars
i)There is here set out an extract from the findings at [109] extracted at [6] of these reasons.
ii)The applicant did not claim that his father worked on a farm outside Baghdad. What he said (see [30]) was that his father worked “on other people’s farms”. There was no evidence before the reviewer that the applicant’s father would not be in a position to meet a Farsi-speaking Iranian trader in Baghdad.
iii)The applicant never claimed (see [30]) that the Iranian trader who arranged to find his father a job was a “Farsi-speaking Iranian trader”. There was no evidence before the reviewer that the applicant’s father and that trader only communicated in Farsi or could only communicate in Farsi.
iv)There was no evidence before the reviewer that the applicant’s father did not have the skills for employment in “washing dishes and learning to cook” (see [30]). The applicant in fact contends that the court can – and the court should – as a matter of judicial notice find this employment does not require prior skills.
v)These findings were not based on rationally probative evidence. They were mere suspicion or speculation, mere conjecture.
vi)The purported determination and recommendation was irrational, illogical or not based on findings of inferences of fact supported by logical grounds.”
[109] has to be read as a whole and to place it in context [30] of the grounds and reasons must be considered:
“[30]Asked why they went to Qazvin, the claimant said his father had come secretly to Iran in 1973 (1352 in the Persian calendar) with the help of an Iranian trader, who came to Baghdad selling tea and other items. He went to Iran because he did not have identity or papers in Iraq. As his father spoke Persian, the trader suggested that he go to Iran to work and arranged for him to find a job at the industrial city. He worked at the Bosch Company, washing dishes and learning to cook. Asked what his father was doing in Baghdad, the claimant said he was work [sic] on other people’s farms. Asked where he met the trader selling tea, the claimant said he did not know because he was not born at that time. He said he knew the story because his father told him he lived in Iran for three years from 1973 to 1975; returned to Iraq when his grandfather passed away; and stayed there until 1980 when they were expelled by Saddam Hussein. Asked why he had not mentioned the camp or that his father had been in Iran before the expulsion in any of his earlier interviews or in his RSA statement, the claimant said he had not been asked about these things.”

The first sentence of [109] deals solely with the credibility of the applicant’s explanation for only raising this matter for the first time at the interview. The Reviewer’s concerns about that explanation were reinforced by the fact that no comment was offered when the concerns were raised at the end of the interview. These sentences seem to me to be nothing more than an appropriate explanation of the Reviewer’s views upon the applicant’s credibility. The important finding is that the explanation was only given for the first time at the interview. That was why the Reviewer considered it lacked credibility. The second part of the paragraph related to the inconsistency between his evidence at the IMR at the RSA interviews and is no more than a statement of a fact. It leaves the inconsistency as a valid ground for impugning the applicant’s credibility. The final part of the paragraph which is attacked on the basis that there is no evidence to support it, is again not a finding that the father did not meet an Iranian trader in Baghdad who would find him employment in the kitchen of the Bosch Factory in Qazvin but an expression of the Reviewer’s reaction to the story. She believed it was far fetched. It was the applicant’s story. He provided no corroborative evidence for it and she thought it was implausible. Another Reviewer may have thought it was entirely plausible but that does not assist the applicant because the Reviewer did not need to have rebutting evidence before deciding that the claim was not made up Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration & Anor [1994] 34 ALD 347 per Heerey J at [348].
The applicant makes much of the fact that the sentence assumes that the applicant and the trader could only communicate in Farsi and that there are many other ways of communicating. But the Reviewer’s conclusions are made even if they did communicate in Farsi. The improbability surrounding the story is of the meeting and of the recommendation for employment in an area many hundreds of miles away from where the meeting took place. It is not difficult to find such a story as improbable or unlikely. I do not believe that the reference to the fact that the father had no skills for the kitchen as a particularly important element of the conclusion but I read the words “no skills” merely as a reference to the father’s then trade as a farm worker for whom cooking (if not washing up) would be a new skill. I would find that the complaints made by the applicant in respect of this paragraph are made by a mind finely attuned to the perception of error and thus not matters that would persuade me that a jurisdictional error has been made: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259; SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 81 ALJR 1190.
Ground 3 is:
“The reviewer failed to put issues relevant to, and determinative of, the applicant’s claims to the applicant.
Particulars: (for further details, refer to Ground above).
i)In regard to [the findings by the reviewer at [109] above, the reviewer never put to the applicant for the applicant’s response the following issues:
a)That the applicant’s father would not be in a position to meet a Farsi-speaking Iranian trader in Baghdad.
b)That the applicant’s father and that trader only communicated in Farsi or could only communicate in Farsi.
c)That the applicant’s father did not have the skills for employment in “washing dishes and learning to cook” (see [30]).”
ii)These issues were the reason or part of the reason for the reviewer’s purported determination and recommendation.”
The difficulty which the applicant faces in respect of this ground is that it is one requiring proof. The only way in which proof could be obtained satisfactorily to this court is by the production of a transcript. Orders were made for the production of a transcript by the applicant if he wished to bring evidence. But this was not done. It is therefore impossible for the court to make a finding as to what the Reviewer did or did not put to the applicant. I would also note that I do not accept that any of the issues (a) to (c) were the reason or part of the reason for the Reviewer’s purported determination and recommendation because they were not findings. They were only constituents of a story that the Reviewer found implausible. It also would seem to me that this part of the paragraph was merely indicative of the Reviewer’s reasoning process and as such is not a matter that requires to be put to an applicant. If the reasoning is unsound there is no error of law in any event; Minister for Immigration & Anor v SZNPG [2010] FCAFC 51 at [20] and the cases there cited. Finally, the matter was referred to by the Reviewer at [47] [CB 138] as information that had been raised for the first time with her.
Ground 4 is:
“The reviewer failed to consider the applicant’s claims.
Particulars
i)In the Statement of Reasons – and under the heading of Findings and Reasons – the reviewer, at [108], said:
My scepticism is compounded by the claimant’s vague response when asked who the Faili Kurds were and his implausible account of Faili Kurds, his great-grandfather included, being evicted from Iran at the time of Reza Shah. No comment was offered when I put to the claimant and his brother that I had been unable to find any evidence of such an eviction in the historical records.
ii)An internet search shows compelling evidence of such evictions as, for example below:
· The Kurds: a contemporary over by Philip G Kreyenbroek, Stefan Sperl (books.google.com.au/books?isbn+0415072654…) which states:
After the rebellions of the 1920s and 1930s, Turkey resettled tens, probably even hundreds of thousands of Kurds in other parts of the country while in Iran in the same period Reza Shah deported several entire tribes and many influential families.
· The Kurds in Iran ( Throughout the 1920s and 19302 Reza Khan suppressed separatist tendencies throughout Iran, amongst the Turkic tribes, the Arabs of Khuzistan as well as the Kurds. Lands were confiscated and sometimes whole tribes moved off their ancestral lands.”
iii)It is clear from the above that there is compelling evidence that Reza Shah deported Kurds in the relevant period as the applicant claimed the reviewer made an error in finding implausible the applicant’s “account of Faili Kurds, his grandfather included, being evicted from Iran at the time of Reza Khan.”
iv)It is also clear that the reviewer’s purported determination and recommendation was based, in whole or in part, on this error, albeit an error of fact.
v)This is tantamount to failure to consider the applicant’s claim. It is constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction.”
In support of this ground the applicant tendered as Exhibit 1 the whole of an article entitled “Iraqi Faylee Kurds and their role in the Iraqi Kurdish national movement” from which extracts had been utilised in the decision record at [70]. The purpose of the tender was to establish that it was difficult to define who exactly a Faili Kurd is. It seems to me that once again the applicant has misconstrued the Reviewer’s reasons. At [33] [CB 135] the Reviewer states:
“[33]I asked the claimant who the Kurds were. He said there were two groups of Faili Kurds – Sunni and Shi’a Kurds. Asked to clarify this he said Faili Kurds had an Iranian origin and Sunni Kurds were Iraqi Kurds and that Sunni Kurds had a conflict with the Shi’a because they did not have an Imam as a religious figure. I asked what made someone a Faili Kurd the claimant said Faili Kurds did not have any identity.”
I do not see why it was not open to the Reviewer to consider that explanation as vague. Exhibit 1 takes six pages to come to the same conclusion. Clearly it is open to a Reviewer to consider the applicant’s short definition as vague. The second part of the paragraph refers to the applicant’s account of his great grandfather being evicted from Iran at the time of Reza Shah. The applicant sought to utilise s.144 of the Evidence Act 1995(Cth) which is in the following form:
Matters of common knowledge
“(1) Proof is not required about knowledge that is not reasonably open to question and is:
(a) common knowledge in the locality in which the proceeding is being held or generally; or
(b) capable of verification by reference to a document the authority of which cannot reasonably be questioned.
(2) The judge may acquire knowledge of that kind in any way the judge thinks fit.
(3) The court (including, if there is a jury, the jury) is to take knowledge of that kind into account.
(4) The judge is to give a party such opportunity to make submissions, and to refer to relevant information, relating to the acquiring or taking into account of knowledge of that kind as is necessary to ensure that the party is not unfairly prejudiced. “
He submitted that it was common knowledge that information about matters of historical fact such as this was readily available on the internet. So much I would accept. But he went on to try and utilise such a finding to bring into evidence the incorrectness of the Reviewer’s assertion that there had been no evictions in the time of Reza Shah. That is not a matter of common knowledge, it is a matter that needs to be proved and it has not been. But even if one accepts that such evictions did occur that seems to be no more than the Reviewer making a factual error within jurisdiction. And the applicant has to my mind an additional problem that the Reviewer had put to him that she had not found any evidence of this fact and he did nothing to disabuse her. If the existence of persecution under Reza Shah was so well known as to be a matter of common knowledge why was the Reviewer’s error not pointed out to her? By not doing so the applicant leaves himself open to the prejudicial commentary made. I can find no jurisdictional error in the manner in which this aspect of the applicant’s claims was dealt with by the Reviewer.
I have not been able to find in favour of the applicant on any of the grounds of his application. The application is dismissed. The Applicant must pay the First Respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $6,240.00.

I certify that the preceding twenty-three (23) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Raphael FM

Date: 4 June 2012