SZUQM v Minister for Immigration
[2015] FCCA 1364
•27 May 2015
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZUQM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2015] FCCA 1364 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Application seeking review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal affirming decision of delegate of Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refusing to grant applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa – show cause hearing – allegation of bias on part of Tribunal Member – no arguable case for relief claimed raised – application dismissed pursuant to r.44.12(1)(a) of Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth). |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36(2)(a), 36(2)(aa) Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.44.12(1)(a) |
| Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510 Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476 Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H & Anor (2001) 179 ALR 425 |
| Applicant: | SZUQM |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 1856 of 2014 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Lloyd-Jones |
| Hearing date: | 15 December 2014 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 13 February 2015 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 27 May 2015 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | The Applicant appeared in person with a Mandarin interpreter. |
| Solicitor for the First Respondent: | Ms A Carr of DLA Piper |
| The Second Respondent: | The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice. |
ORDERS
The application be dismissed pursuant to r.44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1856 of 2014
| SZUQM |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an application filed in this Court on 4 July 2014 under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the “Migration Act”), seeking judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), being RRT Case Number CLF2013/87977, a decision of Tribunal Member A. Mullin dated 6 June 2014, affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the “Minister”) to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa.
The solicitors for the Minister filed on 31 July 2014 a folder which was indexed, labelled and paginated, containing all documents which may be relevant to the hearing. The volume of material provided has been identified as the Court Book (“CB”) and marked as Exhibit “A”.
The applicant was granted leave to file and serve any affidavit evidence, written submissions or list of authorities upon which he sought to rely by 11 November 2014. A hearing under r.44.11(b) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) was listed for 15 December 2014. The applicant did not file any affidavit evidence, written submissions or authorities before the show-cause hearing.
At the show-cause hearing on 15 December 2014 the following orders were made:
1. The applicant file and serve any affidavit evidence they seek to rely on, including any transcript of a tribunal hearing (which is to be prepared with the assistance of a qualified translator), by 30 January 2015. If a transcript is filed and served, the applicant must also prepare comments in respect of the specific sections of the transcript he wishes to bring to the Court’s attention.
2. The applicant file and serve any further written submissions in reply to the first respondent’s written submissions by 30 January 2015.
3. The first respondent file and serve any affidavit evidence in reply by 13 February 2015.
Judgment was otherwise reserved.
Background
In setting out the following background material I have quoted directly from the Court Book and submissions prepared by the Minister. I have not made further attribution as this would make the summary unwieldy. Where this information is extracted from the Court Book, each item contains a reference (“CB”) for that material.
The applicant is a male citizen of the People's Republic of China (“China”) born on 25 October 1974 (CB 29). He arrived in Australia on 21 March 2013 as the holder of a Tourist (Class TR) Subclass 676 visa.
The applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 19 April 2013 (CB 1-26). His claims were set out in a translated statement accompanying the application (CB 30-38).
The applicant claimed to own a waste paper collection business between 1992 and November 2012. He claimed that, in 2009, the leased land on which his business was located was subject to a compulsory acquisition order by the local government. The applicant claimed that he delayed the acquisition by paying a bribe. However, the applicant claimed that in June 2012 the Party Secretary and a local villager conspired to force the applicant from the leased land. The applicant claimed that he consequently petitioned to higher authorities, however, he was beaten and his family was threatened. The applicant claimed that his business lost money and he was forced to sell his stock. The applicant claimed that he hid in a relative's home before travelling to Australia.
The applicant did not attend the scheduled interview with the delegate. The delegate made its decision to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa on 17 October 2013 (CB 53-61).
The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision on 11 November 2013 (CB 62-67).
The applicant gave oral evidence before the Tribunal on 20 May 2014 (CB 73-76). The Tribunal handed down its decision on 6 June 2014 (CB 84).
Tribunal’s Decision
The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had operated a waste paper business and that the leased land for his business was subject to a compulsory acquisition order, for which he was offered no compensation, and in which the Communist Party Secretary had some form of financial interest (CB 90 at [15]).
However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had resisted the acquisition of the land by paying a bribe and then petitioning (CB 90 at [16]). Particularly, the Tribunal found it implausible that the applicant would allow his successful business to run down while he was petitioning to reverse the compulsory acquisition of land that was not owned by him (CB 90 at [16]). Further, the Tribunal found it implausible that the applicant would continue to petition after he had been beaten and his family had been threatened (CB 90 at [17]).
Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant ever opposed or petitioned against the compulsory acquisition of the land, that his property was damaged, that he was beaten or that his family was harassed (CB 90 at [18]). Therefore, the Tribunal did not accept that, if returned to China, there was a real chance or real risk that the applicant would face serious (CB 91 at [19]-[20]) or significant harm (CB 91 at [22]).
Legislative framework
The decision of the Tribunal in the present case is a privative clause decision as defined by s.474(2) of the Migration Act. Section 474 therefore validly operates to prevent the judicial review of all decisions under the Act except those vitiated by jurisdictional error: Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 211 CLR 476.
Current Proceedings
The application pleads two grounds:
1. Jurisdictional error has been made.
During the hearing, I repeatedly asked for provision of new evidence to substantiate my claims. But my requests were ignored.
2. The Tribunal considers my case with bias.
Tribunal member does not completely consider my situation. Based on improper assumption that a successful businessman would not resist the forced acquisition of land, the Tribunal does not believe that I petitioned and then was beaten and threatened and makes wrong decision that I will not suffer substantial harm after I return [to] China.
Minister’s Submissions
Ground One
To the extent that the applicant asserts that the Tribunal failed to provide him with an opportunity to present further evidence, there is nothing in the Court Book, or in the Tribunal's Decision Record, to suggest that the applicant requested an adjournment to present further evidence. In any event, the applicant had more than a year since the date of his visa application to obtain any evidence in support of his application. Nonetheless, the first respondent respectfully submits it is clear from the Decision Record at [11] the applicant was given an opportunity to present arguments and evidence in support of his application.
To the extent that the applicant asserts that the Tribunal should have inquired into new evidence, the Minister respectfully submits that this was not a matter in which there was an obvious inquiry about a critical fact, the existence of which was easily ascertained: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI & Anor (2009) 259 ALR 429 at [25].
Consequently, the Minister submits that ground one does not raise an arguable case for the relief sought.
Ground Two
The applicant asserts that the Tribunal was biased on the basis of his disagreements with the Tribunal's findings and reasons.
An allegation of bias is a serious allegation that must be distinctly made and clearly proven: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507 at [69] per Gleeson CJ and Gummow J, see also SBBS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) 194 ALR 749 at [43] per Tamberlin, Mansfield and Jacobson JJ, VFAB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 131 FCR 102 and Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H & Anor (2001) 179 ALR 425. Further, no inference of bias can be drawn from the mere fact of adverse findings in the decision record: VFAB of 2002 (supra) at [21]; SCAA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668 at [38]; WABC of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs[2002] FCAFC 286 at [3].
The Minister submits that, on the material and evidence before it, it was open to the Tribunal to reject the applicant's claims to have suffered harm in China for the reasons given. Further, there is nothing from the decision record to indicate that the Tribunal did not come to the decision-making process without an open mind.
Consequently, the Minister submits that ground two does not raise an arguable case for the relief sought.
Applicant’s Submissions
At the hearing, the applicant asked if he could present his written submissions as oral submissions. The applicant argued that the Tribunal Member did not follow legal procedures when deciding the matter, but rather used his personal will. The applicant stated that at the Tribunal hearing he made a request to present evidence and was told by the Tribunal Member that it was up to him whether he wanted to present evidence. The applicant argued that the Tribunal Member, being a “legal professional” should know the importance of evidence. The applicant argued that being a “lay person” or a person with no legal expertise, he does not understand how to define “refugee”.
The applicant then referred to a number of scenarios where the police were able to ‘solve the case’ based on the evidence. The applicant claimed that the Tribunal Member was biased and discriminated against the applicant. The applicant construed the Tribunal Member’s comments about the evidence to mean that it did not matter either way whether the applicant presented evidence or not because his mind was already made up. The applicant claimed that this was very irresponsible of the Tribunal Member.
The applicant claimed that when he mentioned that he had a number of scars and injuries on his head and body that he volunteered to show the Tribunal Member, the Tribunal Member stated that he himself had scars on his body, so what were the applicant’s scars to prove. The applicant stated that he was trying to prove that he was a refugee and the scars were evidence to prove that he was persecuted whilst in China.
The Court asked the applicant to clarify what the evidence was that he felt he was unable to present at the Tribunal hearing. The applicant stated that he had pictures on his mobile phone that had been sent from China. One of the pictures shows an intranet announcement from a friend who works in the police department. The applicant claims he was accused of attacking and defaming the social system and disrupting the social order.
The applicant alleged that the Tribunal prevented him from providing further evidence regarding a land acquisition from his neighbouring village with many members of the village being injured.
The Court granted leave to the applicant to file a transcript of the Tribunal hearing and any submissions in support by 30 January 2015. The applicant did not file a transcript, but filed an affidavit with excerpts from the Tribunal hearing. The Minister was granted leave to file and serve any affidavit evidence or written submissions by 13 February 2015.
Supplementary Submissions
The applicant filed an affidavit sworn by himself on 29 January 2015 which set out excerpts from the Tribunal hearing. The 2 pages of extracts are affixed with NAATI accredited stamp from Wenxin (Howard) Bai, a translator of the Chinese to English languages, NAATI No: 38444. At [2] of the applicant’s affidavit it states:
2. During the RRT hearing, Tribunal member said on a few occasions that I would be given opportunities to provide new evidence and the decision would be made based on my evidence. I requested to provide evidence three time but my requests were not adopted. Therefore, I believe my case was treated with bias. Accordingly, it does not meet procedural requirements.
The Minister obtained a transcript of the Tribunal hearing, which is annexed to the Affidavit of Michelle Elizabeth Stone affirmed on 13 February 2015.
The Minister submits that the transcript does not support the allegations made by the applicant in his oral submissions on 15 December 2014.
The applicant relies upon the exchange at p.2 lines 30-45, where the applicant took an oath to tell the truth, and the exchange at p.3 lines 20-35, where the Tribunal explained the evidence to which it would have regard. The applicant appears to suggest that because of this oath, the Tribunal was bound to accept his oral evidence. The Minister submits that this is not the case, and that it was open to the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant was not telling the truth. To the extent that the applicant's contention is that the Tribunal's rejection of the truth of his claims is indicative of bias, the Minister contends that this cannot be sustained. The mere fact of adverse findings does not, in itself, reveal bias or prejudgment: WABC of 2002 (supra) at [3].
The applicant relies on the exchange at p.5 lines 4-11, where the applicant asked “whether I need to submit the evidence to you that I'll be receiving harm”, to which the member replied “we're going to talk about that in a minute”. The Minister contends that this does not support the applicant's allegation that the Tribunal refused to allow him to provide evidence at the hearing. The exchange occurred during the Tribunal's introductory remarks to the applicant, and it is clear that the Tribunal told the applicant that he would have the opportunity to present evidence later in the hearing, which he did.
The applicant relies on the exchange at p.18 lines 35-42, where the applicant indicated that he had more photographs in his telephone, and the Tribunal advised the applicant that it was for him to submit any photographs he wanted. The Minister contends that the Tribunal's statement to the applicant was not a refusal to accept evidence, as is asserted by the applicant, it was a statement to the applicant that he should submit any documents upon which he wished to rely. The first respondent notes that the hearing took place on 20 May 2014 and the Tribunal made its decision on 6 June 2014. The applicant had the opportunity following the hearing to do as the Tribunal advised, that is to submit any photographs upon which he wished to rely. He did not do so.
The applicant relies on the exchange at p.23 lines 30-45 where the applicant asked the Tribunal to look at a scar on his head, and the Tribunal declined to do so, on the basis that a scar would not prove the truth of the applicant's claims. The Minister notes that this exchange was summarised in the Tribunal's decision record at Court Book page 89. The Minister noted that the Tribunal did not reject the applicant's claim to have a scar on his head, and submits that the Tribunal's reasoning was clearly that having a scar was not evidence of how that scar was caused. The Minister contends that this reasoning is reasonable and logical and that in these circumstances, it was not an error for the Tribunal to decline to view the applicant's scar.
Consideration
Section 425 of the Migration Act imposes upon the Tribunal the obligation to extend an invitation to an applicant to appear and to give evidence and that section further identifies the circumstances in which such a hearing may be dispensed with. That section provides as follows:
Tribunal must invite applicant to appear
(1) The Tribunal must invite the applicant to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) the Tribunal considers that it should decide the review in the applicant’s favour on the basis of the material before it; or
(b) the applicant consents to the Tribunal deciding the review without the applicant appearing before it; or
(c) subsection 424C(1) or (2) applies to the applicant.
(3) If any of the paragraphs in subsection (2) of this section apply, the applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal.
The applicant was, accordingly, invited to appear before the Tribunal by way of a letter dated 7 April 2014. In that letter the Tribunal stated:
The Tribunal has considered the material before it but is unable to make a favourable decision on this information alone.
…
If you bring an original document to the hearing to submit as evidence, you should also bring a copy of the document. If you do not bring a copy, the original may not be returned until the end of the review.
(CB 71)
The “RRT Hearing Record” was completed and noted the attendance by the applicant. The Tribunal also made reference at [10] (CB 89) of the Decision Record.
The Tribunal had before it the Departmental and Tribunal files relating to the applicant. The Tribunal, at [11] (CB 87-88) of the Decision Record outlined the applicant’s evidence. At the hearing the applicant produced:
a)His passport (CB 73, 77-80);
b)A photograph which he identified as showing his house (CB 88 at [11]); and
c)A document in Chinese without an English translation, which the applicant stated showed plans for the extension of railway services to the country (CB 88 at [11]).
The Tribunal Member noted that the applicant offered to show scars on his head which were cause when he was beaten by thugs. The Tribunal Member noted that such scars would not, in themselves, demonstrate the truth of his claim (CB 89 at [11]).
The applicant claims that he asked if he could provide more evidence of his claims but his request was ignored. It is well established that “…it is for the applicant for a protection visa to establish the claims that are made…”: SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2006) 228 CLR 152 at [40]. In Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550, Mason J (as he was then) stated:
The applicant is entitled to support his application by such information and material as he thinks appropriate and he cannot complain if the authorities reject his application because they do not accept, without further notice to him, what he puts forward.
In Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [187] their Honours Gummow and Hayne JJ stated:
187. ... The proceedings before the tribunal are inquisitorial and the tribunal is not in the position of a contradictor. It is for the applicant to advance whatever evidence or argument she wishes to advance in support of her contention that she has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. The tribunal must then decide whether that claim is made out.
Subsequently, in Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 197 ALR 389 at 405, Kirby J stated:
78. ... The function of the Tribunal, as of the delegate, is to respond to the case that the applicant advances ...
His Honour Flick J in SZOOM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 152 stated at [19]:
19. The fact that a claimant may be unrepresented and may not be either familiar with the legal requirements to be satisfied or may not be fluent in the English language cannot transfer the responsibility of substantiating a claim from himself to those entrusted with the responsibility of determining the claim.
It is for the applicant in each matter before the Tribunal to make out their own case and to present the evidence necessary to advance their contentions. In the current matter the applicant was invited to produce any evidence he believed would support his claims. There were a number of issues the applicant raised concerning the Tribunal’s conduct in this respect, however, as correctly submitted by the Minister, there was no attempt by the Tribunal to prevent the applicant from filing evidence in support of his claim. The opportunity was afforded to the applicant to file evidence before, during and after the Tribunal hearing.
The applicant’s affidavit of 29 January 2015 contains seven excerpts of the Tribunal hearing and has been translated by a NAATI accredited translator. The applicant has identified the excerpts by length of time passed at the Tribunal hearing. The affidavit of Michelle Stone attaches an Auscript transcribed audio recording of the Tribunal hearing. The Minister’s representative, in the Supplementary Submissions filed on 13 February 2015, has identified the seven excerpts at their page location in the transcript.
The seven excerpts are as follows:
a)Page 2.30-45;
Translation (Member): Mr [SZUQM, if I could ask you now please to stand, and take an oath or affirmation, everything you say will be the truth.
Applicant: Please say it again.
Translation (Member): Just a moment. Yes, well, now. I will red out the Affirmation in English. Thank you. Mr [SZUQM], do you promise that the evidence you give today will be the truth.
Applicant: Correct.
b)Page 3.20-35;
Translation (Member): In doing that, I am going to be looking at all the information that’s available to me. That includes all the information that’s on your file with the Department of Immigration and the tribunal, and of course, all the information you provided at the hearing today, you now have an opportunity to consider all that information and I will make a decision about whether or not I am satisfied that Australia has protection obligations to you.
c)Page 4.10-13;
Translation (Member): That means two things, being first of all, the fear had to be genuine and that the person genuinely has to have that fear. And secondly, there has to be some sort of factual or objective basis for that continuing fear.
d)Page 5.4-11;
Applicant: I am just asking whether I need to submit the evidence to you that I will be physically harmed.
Translator (Member): Yeah, we are going to talk about it in a minute Mr [SZUQM].
e)Page 5.24-25;
Translator (Member): Mr Wang, the hearing today is an opportunity for you; it is an opportunity to give evidence and present argument to support you application.
f)Page 18.35-42;
Applicant: In my mobile, I have some photos in relation to forceful re-location. Do you want to see?
Translator (Member): You can submit the photographs if you want.
g)Page 23.30-45;
Applicant: I want you to see the scars on my head, those were beaten by them.
Translation (Member): Yes, look I have scars myself, my hands, my arms caused by various accidents. I am afraid scars do not indicate anything, really.
Applicant: But I already promise to tell the truth, if you do not believe this, I have nothing to say.
The applicant, at excerpts [47(a)] and [47(b)], appears to suggest that because of the oath the Tribunal was bound to accept his oral evidence. I agree with the Minister’s submissions at [33] above that the Tribunal was open to conclude that the applicant was not telling the truth (see [18]-[20] of the Decision Record). The applicant alleges that the Tribunal Member was biased in that he rejected the applicant’s claims and evidence, despite the applicant taking an oath to tell the truth. No inference of bias or prejudgment can be drawn from the mere fact of adverse findings in the Tribunal’s reasons: WABCof 2002 (supra) at [3].
The applicant, at excerpts [47(d)], [47(e)] and [47(f)], appears to suggest that the Tribunal Member refused to allow the applicant to provide more documentary evidence at the hearing. I agree with the Minister’s contention that this exchange occurred during the Tribunal’s introductory remarks. The “Invitation to Appear before the Tribunal” letter invited the applicant to submit evidence. That letter is dated 7 April 2014 and as such, it is apparent that the applicant was put on notice that he would have the opportunity to submit evidence. The “RRT Hearing Record” (CB 73-76) indicates that documents were received by the Tribunal Member during the hearing. The Departmental file contains copies of these documents (CB 77-83). The Tribunal’s Decision Record also indicates the evidence the applicant submitted at [11]. The documentary evidence the applicant provided is also documented at [11], where it states:
…He submitted a photograph showing, he said, the land following its acquisition.
The Applicant produced further photograph which he identified as showing his house…. He produced a further document in Chinese, without an English translation, which he said showed plans for the extension of railways services to the county...
(CB 88)
As noted above at [41] his Honour Mason J (as he was then) in Kioa v West (supra) held that an applicant is entitled to support his application by such information and material as he thinks appropriate. The applicant in this case was invited to produce evidence to support his claims and he did so. The excerpt at [47(f)] is a statement of the Tribunal that the applicant was able to submit any information that he wished to rely upon. I do not believe that the applicant was denied the opportunity to present any evidence he sought to.
In respect of [47(g)] above, no error is displayed in the manner in which the Tribunal dealt with the applicant’s attempt to show the Tribunal Member the scars on his head. It was reasonably open to Tribunal to state to the applicant (and in its Decision Record) that scars, of themselves, would not demonstrate the truth of the claim to have been beaten by thugs. Accordingly, any complaint raised in respect of this claim cannot be sustained.
I further note that the above extracts have been reproduced in isolation. No attempt was made by the applicant to furnish a full transcript of the Tribunal hearing. The Minister, however, did provide a full transcript of the Tribunal hearing. A fair reading of the transcript reveals no bias on the part of the Tribunal and does not support any such claim as made by the applicant. The allegation of bias made by the applicant has failed to be clearly proven. No arguable case for the relief claimed has been raised in this respect.
Ground 1 of the application pleads that the Tribunal denied the applicant the opportunity to provide further evidence in support of his claim. For the reasons stated above, this claim raises no arguable case for the relief claimed.
Ground 2 of the application raises an allegation of bias on the part of the Tribunal. However, the particulars appear to frame two further claims, namely:
a)The Tribunal did not consider all of the claims put forward by the applicant; and
b)The Tribunal made wrong findings in respect of the applicant’s substantive protection claims.
The Tribunal’s statement of the claims made by the applicant were noted at [11] of the Decision Record. I have had regard to the applicant’s written claims contained in the Court Book as well as the transcript of the Tribunal hearing and, on fair readings thereof, am of the view there has been no such failure on the part of the Tribunal. This aspect of the ground is without substance.
The second aspect of the ground seeks to dispute findings of fact made by the Tribunal and invites the Court to engage in impermissible merits review (see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang & Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272. This aspect of the ground is also without substance.
Considering the applicant’s allegation of bias more generally, there is no evidence before the Court to support such an allegation. This allegation has not been clearly made or distinctly proven, and a fair reading of the transcript of the Tribunal hearing reveals no pre-judgment or bias on the part of the Tribunal Member.
Accordingly, having regard to the above, no arguable case for the relief claimed is raised by ground 2 of the application.
Conclusion
None of the pleaded grounds of the application raise an arguable case for the relief claimed. Further, a fair reading of the Court Book, particularly the Decision Record, and the transcript of the Tribunal hearing reveal no error on the part of the Tribunal.
Consequently, the application should be dismissed pursuant to r.44.12(1)(a) of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), with costs awarded to the Minister.
I certify that the preceding sixty (60) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Lloyd-Jones
Associate:
Date: 27 May 2015
15
3