SZTFB v Minister for Immigration

[2014] FCCA 2367

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTFB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 2367

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Persecution – review of Refugee Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) decision – visa – protection visa – refusal.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Allegation that the Tribunal’s decision affected by jurisdictional error by reason that the Tribunal breached s.425 of the Migration Act 1958, failed to consider all the applicant’s claims, failed to consider whether the applicant was a member of a particular social group and misapplied the test for complementary protection.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958, ss.36, 425, 474

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
NABE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (No 2) (2004) 144 FCR 1
SZRPA v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2012] FCA 962
SZQFR v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2013] FCA 574

Applicant: SZTFB

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1988 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Cameron

Hearing dates: 12 August and 13 October 2014

Date of Last Submission: 13 October 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 6 November 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A. Kumar

Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms B. Anniwell

Solicitors for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The application be dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1988 of 2013

SZTFB

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka who arrived on Christmas Island by boat on 18 May 2012.  On 27 August 2012 he lodged an application for a protection visa with what is now the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, alleging that he feared persecution in Sri Lanka primarily because of his Tamil ethnicity and his imputed political opinion.  On 16 November 2012 the applicant’s application was refused by a delegate of the first respondent (“Minister”).  The applicant then applied to the second respondent (“Tribunal”) for a review of that departmental decision.  He was unsuccessful before the Tribunal and has applied to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.

2. 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.

3. For the reasons which follow, the application will be dismissed.

Background facts

1. The facts alleged in support of the applicant’s claim for a protection visa were set out on pages 4-8 of the Tribunal’s decision. Relevant factual allegations are summarised below.

2. The applicant made the following claims in a statutory declaration attached to his protection visa application:

   a)in May 1995 his sister was raped by a Sinhalese police officer.  The officer responsible fled after being ordered by a court to marry the applicant’s sister.  The local police would not assist in locating the officer and threatened the applicant’s father to make him drop the matter;

   b)in June 1998 another of his sisters was shot and killed in crossfire between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (“LTTE”) and the Sri Lankan army.  He and his family were assaulted after they approached the army about the incident;

   c)three months after the incident, he was held at an army camp for two days and questioned about the LTTE in the area.  He was told not to question the army about his sister’s death and was beaten.  The army accused his sister of supporting the LTTE and he was also suspected of being involved with the group;

   d)six months later, on suspicion of belonging to the LTTE, he was again detained at an army camp.  He was questioned and beaten and released after three hours; 

   e)to avoid any further harm from the army he left Sri Lanka in 2003 and remained overseas until 2004;

   f)the army came to his home in November 2005 to find him and to tell him to report to an army camp.  He was not at home at the time and went into hiding until 2006 when he went overseas, where he remained until 2010;

   g)following his return to Sri Lanka, the army approached him again in June 2011 and asked where he had been.  He fled his home three days later after he saw members of the army approaching his home.  The army told his parents that he had to report to them so he escaped to India in September 2011;

   h)he returned to Sri Lanka in October 2011 but, because of his fear of the army, worked at a different location.  After leaving Sri Lanka, the army went to his family’s home looking for him and threatened to kill him; and

   i)he feared that he would be harmed in Sri Lanka because of the events that had occurred while he lived there, because he left the country illegally and because he had sought asylum in Australia, which the Sri Lankan government would find damaging to its reputation.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 24 January 2013 and relevantly gave the following additional evidence:

   a)in 1990, during the conflict, he and his family farmed in an area controlled by the LTTE and the army questioned his father on suspicion of providing supplies to the LTTE;

   b)in the 1990s a third sister was injured in a bus when a bomb was thrown during a skirmish between the army and the LTTE.  She reported the matter to the police and was told that she would receive compensation but had not received anything;

   c)three months after his other sister was shot in 1998, army officers came to his house to tell him to report to the army but he was not home and did not comply.  Approximately one month later, the army returned and took him to a camp where he was held for two days.  They accused him and his deceased sister of being involved with the LTTE and, in order to justify his sister’s shooting, asked if on the day she was shot she had told the LTTE that they should attack the army.  They mistreated him and accused his family of being members of the LTTE;

   d)at the end of 1998 he was again taken to an army camp and held for two days.  They beat him and accused him of supporting the LTTE;

   e)in about March or April 1999, the army detained him and some other Tamils at an army camp for two or three hours in order to check their identity cards.  They were beaten and asked if the LTTE had been coming to the area;

   f)after that incident, he went into hiding and was unable to work because of his fear of the army. He stayed with relatives until he fled to Malaysia in September 2003.  While he was in Malaysia, the army went to his family home looking for him;

   g)he returned to Sri Lanka in July 2004 because his mother was ill and she wanted to see him.  While at the Sri Lankan embassy collecting documents necessary for him to leave Malaysia, Malaysia’s immigration officials detained him because his visa had expired.  He was then sent back to Sri Lanka;

   h)on return to Sri Lanka and after being cleared through the airport, he resumed working with his father on his family’s farm.  He also helped to look after his mother;

   i)in or about November 2004, the army came to his home and told him to go to their “place”.  He did not comply because he was afraid that they would harm him.  The army returned three weeks later but when he saw them coming he fled to an aunt’s home;

   j)he hid with relatives and was too afraid to resume work.  The army visited his family home during the period he was in hiding;

   k)in April 2006 he travelled to Qatar.  He remained there until June 2010 when he returned to Sri Lanka because his parents had told him that the army had not been searching for him for a while.  He also needed to get married;

   l)in mid-2011, while on his way to his family’s farm, he was approached by a soldier and asked where he had been.  He told the soldier that he had married and the soldier left.  This encounter frightened him and he stopped going to work at the farm.  He then stayed at the home of an aunt 250 metres away from his parent’s home;

   m)three days later, the army visited his family home at night and told his parents that he had to report to them.  He did not go as he was afraid that he would be harmed and went into hiding for two months until September 2011, when he travelled to India;

   n)he returned to Sri Lanka after a month in India because the army had not visited his parents’ home in that period, it was expensive to live in India and his wife was ill.  The applicant lived and worked in a grocery store approximately 350 metres from his parents’ home before leaving for Australia in May 2012; and

   o)the army had visited his family a few times since his departure for Australia, the last time being in November 2012.  On one occasion the army told his parents that they were looking for him and that he would be killed if he returned.

4. The applicant’s representative lodged written submissions with the Tribunal on 8 February 2013 and 6 May 2013.

The Tribunal’s decision and reasons

1. After discussing the claims made by the applicant and the evidence before it, the Tribunal 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”) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act which provides for “complementary protection”. The Tribunal’s decision was based on the following findings and reasons:

   a)the Tribunal found that the applicant was not a witness of truth and disbelieved his substantive claims in their totality.  In particular, the Tribunal did not believe the applicant’s claims that he and his family had worked on a farm in or near an LTTE-controlled area which had been taken over by the army, that his family had been harmed by the authorities, that his sister had been killed by the authorities, that the army had ever come to his home and/or detained him, that they had suspected that he and his family were involved with the LTTE, that he had been called over by an army soldier, or that he had gone into hiding or travelled overseas because of a fear of the army.  In this connection, the Tribunal:

   i)referred to the applicant’s inconsistent evidence regarding the timing of the army’s final visit before he left Sri Lanka to come to Australia.  It noted that the applicant had variously stated during the hearing that the incident had occurred in November 2011, in November 2010, sometime in 2010, and then in July 2011.  The Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s reason for the various dates, that he did not recall things clearly, as the incident specifically caused his departure from Sri Lanka for India and it could reasonably be expected that he would give a consistent account of it;

   ii)referred to the applicant’s inconsistent account as to whether he was present at his parents’ home when the Sri Lankan army visited;

   iii)referred to the absence from the applicant’s statutory declaration of any reference to his second two day detention.  Given the declaration contained a relatively detailed account of his experiences in Sri Lanka, the Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s explanation that he was not questioned about those things in the same depth or was questioned in a different way when he was formulating his declaration;

   iv)referred to a discrepancy between the applicant’s evidence at its hearing, that he did not know why the army thought his deceased sister had been supporting the LTTE, and his evidence in his statutory declaration, that the army had suspected that his sister supported the LTTE because the LTTE had been hiding behind her during a fight with the army;

   v)acknowledged the applicant’s representative’s submission that a traumatic event could affect an applicant’s ability to give consistent evidence, however, it found that the applicant’s inconsistent evidence was because he was not a witness of truth and that the claimed traumatic events had in fact not occurred;

   vi)accepted that the applicant registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Malaysia but did not believe that this was due to any genuine fear of harm in Sri Lanka; and

   vii)gave no weight to various documents produced by the applicant, including a death certificate purportedly for his sister, as they did not outweigh its concerns about his credibility.

   b)the Tribunal considered that the risk that a Tamil, including a Tamil who came from an area previously controlled by the LTTE, from the north or the east of Sri Lanka, or a Tamil male from a particular region, would suffer harm for those reasons alone was remote.  It also considered that the applicant was not a Tamil who fell within the identified risk profile of opposition politicians, journalists and human rights activists;

   c)it considered it a remote risk that a Tamil would suffer harm in Sri Lanka as a returnee because he or she had sought asylum abroad and had left illegally.  In this connection, the Tribunal accepted that the applicant would be questioned by Sri Lankan authorities at the airport and acknowledged that the Sri Lankan government had, from November 2012, begun to charge people for offences relating to illegal departure. However, the Tribunal found that even if the applicant were to be held on remand in poor conditions, it would be for a very brief period and would not amount to serious or significant harm.  It further found that the risk of a gaol sentence on the basis of his illegal departure was remote and a fine was the most likely outcome which, in the Tribunal’s opinion, also did not amount to serious harm.  The Tribunal also referred to the applicant’s claim that he would suffer harm once he left the airport but considered that if failed Tamil asylum seekers were being harmed on those grounds once they returned to their native areas, there would have been reports confirming that;

   d)the Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claims that he would suffer persecution because of a real or imputed political opinion opposed to the government.  In this connection, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not been politically active in Sri Lanka and had made no claim that he held a political opinion which opposed the government or that he had refrained from political activities for fear of harm.  It referred to country information and considered that simply being a Tamil from a particular part of Sri Lanka and being a male of a certain age was not likely to lead to the applicant being perceived as an opponent of the government and harmed on that account;

   e)it found that the applicant did not belong to any particular social group made up of family members of LTTE sympathisers as there was no credible evidence that the applicant’s family included any real or perceived LTTE sympathiser;

   f)the Tribunal found that the applicant did not belong to any particular social group of people suspected of being members of the LTTE or of being associated with or supporting the LTTE because there was no credible evidence that he had been suspected of this.  It also did not agree that simply being Tamil, male, of a certain age and from a certain part of Sri Lanka meant that the applicant was suspected of LTTE involvement;

   g)it was not satisfied that the applicant’s rights to practise his religion, express himself, associate with others or live according to his Tamil culture would be infringed in any way which would amount to serious harm.  In particular, while the Tribunal accepted that the military might have interfered with the celebration of a Tamil religious festival, it did not accept that the applicant would be unable to practise his religion or be harmed for doing so in Sri Lanka, particularly since the applicant himself had made no claim that he could not practise Hinduism in that country; and

   h)the Tribunal found that the applicant would not have to modify any aspect of his identity or conduct in order to avoid harm and rejected his representative’s submission that he would live in fear and suffer psychological harm if he were to return to Sri Lanka.

Proceedings in this Court

1. In his further amended application the applicant alleged:

   1.The Tribunal denied the Applicant procedural fairness and thereby breached s.425 of the Act when it failed to put determinative issues to the Applicant. The Tribunal committed jurisdictional error.

   Particulars

   The Tribunal failed to put the Applicant on notice of dispositive/determinative issues – delegate did not make adverse findings about the various incidents claimed by the Applicant such as death of sister (the delegate principally relied upon the country information that the Applicant was not in need of protection); the Tribunal proceeded make adverse finding without given the Applicant chance.

   The Applicant contends that the Tribunal misapprehended the claim that he would be suspected of being LTTE because of his deceased sister LTTE involvement.  The Tribunal has misapprehended the claim and failed to assess the Applicant’s claim that the SLA would suspect the Applicant to be LTTE and harm him (CB 295, RRT decision, at [100]) instead misdirecting enquiries to reason for suspected involvement of deceased sister’s involvement with LTTE and the intention of his sister to involve LTTE which could be answered only by the deceased sister arbitrarily dismissive of the documents (CB 297; RRT at [112] but failing to look at the key integer that the sister was dead, erroneously assessing against persons with general profile group CB 300 at [144]) and failing to put the non-reliability of the document to the applicant thereby denying procedural fairness.

   2.The Tribunal committed jurisdictional error when it failed to properly identify, assess and address the risk of harm in respect of the Applicant’s particular social group being a young person, Hindu, of Tamil ethnicity from North East and whose sister was killed in cold blood.

   Particulars

   The Tribunal has been procedurally unfair and made decision turned on unidentified or a different social group (CB 298, RRT Decision at [p21.7] at [126]) instead of clearly identifying the social group and dealing with the relevant social group[s] the Applicants were advancing “family member of LTTE sympathiser” and did not deal with the particular social group advanced by the Applicant (above attributes and a family member killed in cold blood and whether the Applicant was at risk of harm).

   3.The Tribunal committed jurisdictional error when it failed conflated the issues the issues relating to complementary claims with s 36(2)(a) claim; failed to take into account all personal circumstances and erred in the application of “real risk” test.

   Particulars

   The Tribunal failed to address whether the Applicant’s claim that his sister has been killed in cold blood together with other matters addressed would pose risk of serious harm upon return to Sri Lanka in circumstances where it is claimed that a family member killed in cold blood.

   The Tribunal failed to consider

Ground 1

1. In his written submissions the applicant expanded upon the allegation that the Tribunal had failed to put certain information to him pursuant to s.425 of the Act by saying in para.9 of those submissions that the determinative matters which had not been put to him were:

   a)the rape of his sister;

   b)the threat to his father;

   c)the death of his other sister; and

   d)his detention,

   claims to which the delegate had referred at pages 5-6 and 10 of his decision record.

1. The applicant referred to the rejection of the first three of those assertions which can be found at para.106 of the Tribunal’s reasons.  He submitted that the Tribunal had denied him procedural fairness by failing to put those issues to him.  

2. Contrary to the applicant’s allegation and submissions, the first three matters he identified were not determinative or dispositive of the review.  The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not a witness of truth because of inconsistencies in his accounts of:

   a)the timing of the final visit from the army before he left Sri Lanka to come to Australia;

   b)whether he was living with his parents or in hiding when the army called at his family home;

   c)how many times he had been detained by the army; and

   d)why and whether the army suspected his dead sister of having supported the LTTE.

   Having rejected the applicant’s credibility based on those inconsistencies, the Tribunal then concluded that it could not rely on his account more generally and consequently rejected his assertions concerning the first three matters particularised above at [10]. That is to say, those matters were not determinative and the Tribunal’s finding on them was simply consequential upon its credit finding arising out of the matters listed above in this paragraph which were determinative.

3. The fourth of the issues said in para.9 of the applicant’s written submissions to have been dealt with but not rejected by the delegate was the claim concerning “the detention of the applicant”.  This assertion was clarified in para.10 of those written submissions where the applicant continued:

   The Tribunal rejected … a number of claims … and disbelieved that the army came to his house.

4. Before the delegate the applicant claimed to have been detained twice, once for two days at an army camp three months after his sister had been killed in June 1998 (i.e. September 1998) and again for two or three hours at the same camp six months later (i.e. early 1999) when the “SLA rounded up 4 other Tamils and myself”. Before the Tribunal the applicant also claimed to have been detained for a further two days at the end of 1998, something which he had not raised with the delegate. Of the two detention claims made to the delegate, only one was expressed in terms of the army coming to his home and detaining him, namely the two day detention three months after his sister was killed. Consequently, it must be to this detention that the applicant referred when he alleged that a claim not rejected by the delegate had been rejected by the Tribunal without the necessary notice under s.425 of the Act. However, contrary to that allegation the issue was canvassed at the Tribunal’s hearing as paras.98 and 99 of its reasons for decision records. For this reason, this aspect of the allegation is not made out on the facts.

5. In his particulars of the first allegation in the further amended application the applicant also said that the Tribunal had failed to put to him the “non-reliability of the document”, presumably a reference to the documents referred to at para.112 of the Tribunal’s reasons (which was referred to in those particulars).  Again, the reliability of the documents was not an issue on which the Tribunal based its conclusions on the applicant’s truthfulness and, indeed, the documents were put to one side as matters which were given no weight at all.  They were not determinative of the review because the Tribunal had concluded, based on other matters, that the applicant was not a witness of truth.

6. Another issue emerging from the further amended application was the allegation that the Tribunal failed to assess “the Applicant’s claim that the SLA would suspect the Applicant to be LTTE and harm him”.  However, the Tribunal expressly rejected that claim at para.107 of its reasons.  A further issue was the allegation that the Tribunal failed to “look at the key integer that the sister was dead”. The Tribunal considered that assertion and dealt with it at para.106 of its reasons.  As to the yet further issue concerning the “general profile group”, I adopt the Minister’s written submissions:

   The applicant contends that, at [144] of its decision, the Tribunal erroneously assessed the applicant “against persons with general profile group” but has failed to particularise how that paragraph is affected by jurisdictional error.

   At [144], the Tribunal considered whether the applicant fell within one of the group profiles identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees country information as facing risk requiring careful examination (CB 286-287, [60]). The Tribunal determined that, because the applicant did not fall within one of these groups, the risk of being victim to a human rights violation was remote.

   The relevant reasoning was not affected by error.

7. Finally, the applicant submitted that the Tribunal had not put him on notice that it would reach a conclusion on the four matters set out above at [10] which was different from the decision reached by the delegate. Section 425 did not oblige the Tribunal to disclose its thought processes to the applicant and so the fact that it did not do so was not an error.

Ground 2

1. In the particulars of the second allegation the applicant referred to para.126 of the Tribunal’s reasons where the Tribunal identified the following particular social groups as the ones to which it had had regard when considering the applicant’s claims:

   a)Tamils;

   b)Tamil men from the east or north of Sri Lanka;

   c)people suspected or accused of being members of or associating with or supporting the LTTE;

   d)failed Tamil asylum seekers; and

   e)“family member of LTTE sympathiser”.

2. The applicant submitted that the Tribunal had failed properly to identify all the particular social groups of which he was a member and to assess his application in light of all of them.  In his written submissions the applicant argued that the Tribunal should have considered his claims by reference to the following particular social groups:

   a)Sri Lankans;

   b)young males;

   c)residing in or considered to be from the north and eastern part of Sri Lanka;

   d)birthplace;

   e)persons likely to be perceived or are suspected of having some allegiance to the LTTE or other groups;

   f)possibly holding views opposed to their treatment by the government of Sri Lanka by reason of their imputed political opinion;

   g)“other attributes as noted above” which appears to refer to paras.20 and 22 of the applicant’s written submissions where he referred to being a returned failed Tamil asylum seeker.

   During addresses, the allegations concerning the first two groups were abandoned.

3. At all stages of his visa application and review process, the applicant was professionally represented by the same, apparently skilled, migration agents.  In the course of representing the applicant, his migration agents made one written submission to the delegate and two written submissions to the Tribunal, the second being a response to an invitation to comment on information.  In those submissions the applicant’s advisers expressly identified five particular social groups of which they asserted the applicant was a member.  Those were the groups referred to by the Tribunal at para.126 of its reasons.  It was not suggested that any further particular social groups had been expressly identified during the course of the Tribunal’s hearing or at any other time.

4. In  NABE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (No 2) (2004) 144 FCR 1 it was held that the Tribunal must consider a claim which arises clearly on the materials before it even if it is not expressly made: at 20 [61]. It is a feature of the Tribunal’s inquisitorial function. However, in a case where an applicant is professionally represented, and subject to what the applicant may say in his or her evidence to the Tribunal, the Tribunal is entitled to infer that the applicant’s claims are the ones articulated on his or her behalf by his professional advisers, that none are left to be inferred and that if the applicant does not pursue an issue he or she can be taken to have elected not to press it: SZRPA v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2012] FCA 962 at [10] and [26], SZQFR v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2013] FCA 574 at [57].

5. I find that the particular social groups which the applicant’s migration agents propounded to the Tribunal were the only ones which he wished it to consider and that he did not press claims in connection with any other particular social groups of which he might have been a member.  As the Tribunal did consider the groups propounded and was not obliged to consider any others, the second ground of the further amended application is not made out.

Ground 3

1. The following contentions can be distilled from the third allegation in the further amended application, its particulars and the applicant’s submissions:

   a)the Tribunal treated its findings on Convention-related claims as applicable to the applicant’s complementary protection claims;

   b)the Tribunal did not give separate consideration to the applicant’s complementary protection claims; and

   c)the Tribunal misapplied the complementary protection test.

2. Much of the Tribunal’s discussion of the applicant’s claims was undertaken in the context of his Convention-related claims and it was only after those matters were addressed that, in six paragraphs, the Tribunal dealt with the issue of complementary protection.  This reflected the manner in which the applicant’s advisers had advanced his case in their written submissions both to the delegate and to the Tribunal.  In the written submissions made to the delegate the applicant’s advisers set out the basis of his complementary protection claims by reference to the facts advanced in support of his Convention-related claims.  This approach was repeated in the advisers’ submissions to the Tribunal of 8 February 2013 which commenced:

   We rely on our previous submissions and now provide further information to support the applicant’s claims that he is at risk of Convention-related persecution or significant harm in Sir Lanka.

   That submission then continued for a further twenty-two pages before concluding with a two paragraph submission on complementary protection which relevantly said:

   While we submit that the risks for the applicant is [sic] Convention-related, we submit that the country information supports a conclusion that the applicant falls within the complimentary protection provisions…

   We submit that based on his claims and on the country information, there are substantial grounds for believing that the Applicant’s risk of suffering the prohibited forms of harm in Section 36(2A) is foreseeable, is real, and is personal.

3. The Tribunal approached the applicant’s complementary protection claims in the same manner as the applicant had proposed them, namely, that the facts he advanced were equally applicable to both his Convention-related claims and to his complementary protection claims. 

4. The Tribunal considered but rejected the applicant’s factual claims as being untruthful.  It also considered the applicant’s claims about his circumstances more generally in Sri Lanka but found that he was not at risk of harm for the reasons he alleged.  Having discussed those matters in detail in the context of the applicant’s Convention-related claims, it was unnecessary for the Tribunal to repeat the exercise in the context of his complementary protection claims because its findings of fact applied equally well to both.  It also gave separate consideration to those claims which related solely to the complementary protection allegation, namely the ones arising out of the potential for the applicant to be detained in poor prison conditions upon his return to Sri Lanka because he had left the country illegally.

5. For those reasons, the first two elements of the third ground of the further amended application are not made out.

6. Turning to the third element of the third ground, in paras.16 to 19 of its reasons, the Tribunal set out the complementary protection criteria and then demonstrated a correct understanding of that test by applying it correctly in paras.174 to 179 of its reasons under the heading “Complementary protection”.  Consequently, the Tribunal did not err as the applicant alleged.

Conclusion

1. Jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal has not been demonstrated.

2. Consequently, the application will be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding thirty (30) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Cameron

Associate: 

Date: 6 November 2014