SZUTU v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 3112

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZUTU v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 3112

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application for review of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal complied with s.424AA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – whether the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant’s claims – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.422B, 424A, 424AA, 425, 476

Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2010] HCA 23; (2010) 267 ALR 204
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNPG [2010] FCAFC 51; (2010) 115 ALD 303
Chen v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCAFC 56
SZQRW  v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCAFC 164
MZXSA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 123
Minister for Immigration v Rajamanikkam [2002] HCA 32; 210 CLR 222

Applicant: SZUTU

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2026 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Nicholls

Hearing date: 9 November 2015

Date of Last Submission: 9 November 2015

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 23 November 2015

REPRESENTATION

Solicitors for the Applicant: In Person

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms S Given of Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The name of the second respondent is amended to read “Administrative Appeals Tribunal”.

2. The application made on 21 July 2014 is dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs set in the amount of $5800.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2026 of 2014

SZUTU

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application made on 21 July 2014 pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) seeking review of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal, now the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”), made on 19 June 2014 which affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate to refuse a Protection (Class XA) visa to the applicant.

2. In evidence before the Court is a bundle of relevant documents filed by the Minister (“the Court Book” – “CB”) and the applicant’s affidavit of 23 January 2015 which annexed various “original medical proof” and “proof of disability and treatment” documents. The Minister objected to the affidavit on the grounds of relevance (see further below at [30] – [34]).

Background

1. The following relevant background can be ascertained from the Court Book. The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan who arrived in Australia on 11 May 2011 on a visitor visa (CB 13). The applicant applied for a protection visa on 26 July 2011 (CB 1 to CB 26). He provided a written statement with his application (CB 27).

2. The applicant’s claim to protection stemmed from his activities as a medical products distributor in Pakistan who would frequently supply medicine to an organisation in Kashmir called Jamaat–ud–dawa (“JUD”). The applicant claimed that he originally did not know the “objective” of this group. He claimed to have been approached by the leader of this group, who asked the applicant to join their organisation and undertake “humanitarian work for Azad Kashmir people” (CB 27).

3. The applicant refused to join the group as he was a “family man”. Upon discussion with his family, he came to realise that the JUD was linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba (“LET”), a group which had been banned in Pakistan. The applicant stopped supplying medicine to the JUD, who began to contact him to request that he “visit them immediately”. The applicant provided the excuse that his wife was sick and he needed to care for her, and he told them that he was not working for the company anymore (CB 27).

4. The leader of the JUD contacted him on his cell phone and requested that the applicant visit him in Sialkot. The applicant refused and “switched off” his mobile. He realised his life was in danger and decided to leave the country as the “government authority” would not protect him and the “group” had links with “Pakistani ISI” because of their “usefulness against India and Afghanistan” (CB 27).

The Delegate

1. The applicant was invited to attend an interview with the delegate. A departmental case note shows that the applicant did not attend the interview with the delegate on 13 December 2011, and, subsequently, presented a medical certificate to the department dated 7 December 2011. The case note is in the following terms (CB 33):

   “The applicant failed to attend the interview on 13/12/2011. He did not notify the department about his non-attendance in advance. When asked about the reasons he stated that he was undergoing medical treatment at a hospital in Wagga Wagga and asked his employer to fax his medical certificate to the department but because their relationship has soured recently the employer apparently has not done so. I asked the applicant to provide the MC to [sic] and he faxed it on 20/12/2011. It is made on the form of the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital, carries the applicant's AUID and name and was signed on 7/12/2011 awarding the applicant 3 weeks of sick leave. The signature and name of the doctor are illegible. I contacted the hospital's

   
   

   record-keeping section and have been advised that the applicant last attended hospital in November 2011. There is no record of him attending the hospital on 7/12/2011 and issuing a medical certificate. I conclude that the medical certificate presented by the applicant is a forgery.”

2. The delegate of the Minister refused the visa application on 6 January 2014 (CB 37 to CB 42). Essentially, the delegate concluded that the “medical certificate” the applicant presented, as an explanation as to why he did not attend the interview on 13 December 2011, was a “forged document”. The signature on the medical certificate was “illegible” and the delegate contacted the hospital, who advised that they had not issued any medical certificates to the applicant on 7 December 2011. The delegate concluded that there was no “credible reason” for the applicant’s failure to attend the interview and due to this the delegate was unable to be satisfied as to the “veracity of his claims” (CB 40 to CB 42).

The Tribunal

1. The applicant applied for review of the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal on 2 February 2012 (CB 43 to CB 48).  The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Minister’s delegate on 18 September 2012 to refuse a protection visa to the applicant on the basis that the Tribunal was not able to be satisfied as to the credibility of the applicant’s account of his experiences in Pakistan (CB 50 to CB 68). The applicant sought judicial review. The decision of the Tribunal was remitted by consent for reconsideration by the Tribunal by the then Federal Magistrates Court on 31 May 2013 (CB 67 to CB 70 and [4] at CB 99).

2. The applicant was invited to attend a hearing before a differently constituted Tribunal (CB 69 to CB 70). The applicant attended a hearing with the Tribunal (as differently constituted) on 28 May 2014 (CB 91 to CB 93).The applicant provided at the hearing a further medical certificate from Dr Khalid Aziz Qidwai (CB 78) and copies of pages from his passport (CB 80 to CB 90).

3. The applicant confirmed at the hearing that he was “fit to give evidence” ([8] at CB 99).  The applicant claimed that he had been on strong medication at the previous Tribunal hearing and “requested” the Tribunal to disregard any “small differences” between his claims then and now “because he may not have understood the questions on that occasion” ([9] at CB 99 to CB 100). 

4. The applicant stated that he had had the opportunity to listen to the recording of the previous Tribunal hearing, and had a copy of the decision record, and indicated that he did not want to correct or identify any changes in his claims. The Tribunal stated that it was not able to agree to the applicant’s request to disregard “small differences” in his various claims to each Tribunal, as his claims were unsubstantiated, and it “was particularly important” that the Tribunal could rely on the truthfulness and consistency of his evidence in the consideration of whether he should be granted a visa. The applicant again confirmed that he did not wish to make any changes to his claims ([9] at CB 99 to CB 100).

5. At the hearing before the Tribunal, the applicant expanded on his claims as they were set out in his written statement. The applicant stated, for the first time, that on two occasions “he escaped being captured by the JUD”. He saw them through his “car mirror” while he was undertaking a work delivery. When he returned to his work from the delivery, these people were no longer there. The applicant said he had not raised this claim before because he was not “asked” about it and he said he did not inform the police as he was afraid ([15] at CB 101).

6. The Tribunal drew the applicant’s attention to independent country information that was before the previous Tribunal about the JUD and indicated to the applicant that the Tribunal had difficulty believing that the applicant only became aware of the organisation after talking with his family and after having been involved with the organisation for some time. This was due to the fact that the government had “banned” the JUD in 2008 because of its links with the LET, had arrested its leaders, frozen its bank accounts and sealed some of its offices. Further, the Tribunal stated to the applicant that it believed it was “implausible” that the JUD would recruit someone with the applicant’s profile, two years after the crackdown, and that the head of the JUD would call the applicant directly.  The Tribunal suggested that the risks the JUD were allegedly taking were “disproportionate” to the value that the applicant may have brought to the group ([16] - [17] at CB 101).

7. In response, the applicant variously claimed that the JUD may have attempted to recruit him as he had “seen some of their places” but not the main bases. Further, that the leader of the JUD may have contacted him because others who had contacted him were unsuccessful in recruiting him ([18] at CB 101).

8. Further, the applicant claimed that it was the LET that was banned in 2008 and that the JUD did not exist at the time. The Tribunal put to the applicant country information that had been before the previous Tribunal about the JUD, that indicated that it did exist at that time and that the LET was banned in 2002 ([19] at CB 101).

9. The applicant claimed that he could not re-open his factory if he returned to Pakistan as he “feared for his life” and had hurt his left leg. No one else could open the factory as it was in his name ([20] at CB 102). The applicant claimed that he had previously not given complete details of his past employment with “Tanveer Barawalla”, as at the time he filled out the application he did not know he had to give details ([21] at CB 102).

10. The applicant claimed that his company may be still listed on the internet as it was registered with the Chamber of Commerce and that he owned the company with his brother. The applicant claimed that he had not previously mentioned that he shared the company with his brother, as his brother was not present when he registered the company in 2007, that his brother’s name was used as he was “more educated than the applicant”, and that the applicant had established an office but that this did not eventuate ([22] at CB 102).

11. Utilising s.424AA of the Act, the Tribunal drew the applicant’s attention to the medical certificate that he had provided to the delegate on 20 December 2011, and the information in the delegate’s decision record that indicated that when the delegate contacted the hospital there was no record of the applicant’s attendance at the hospital on 7 December 2011, which led to the delegate’s conclusion that it was a “forged document”. The Tribunal explained that this information might “raise doubts” about the truthfulness of the applicant’s claims ([24] at CB 103 to CB 104). The applicant claimed that he had attended the hospital on 6 or 7 December 2011, that he had asked his employer to provide the certificate to the Department, and that he did not believe that the hospital had said he was not there ([25] at CB 103).

12. The applicant claimed that he was unable to work now because of his injury, that he was not educated and was a labourer, and no longer had any money ([26] at CB 103).

13. The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate on 19 June 2014 (CB 98 to CB 107).  Essentially, the Tribunal found that ([28] at CB 103):

    “…the applicant's evidence regarding central aspects of his claims vague, implausible and unsupported, including by country information from independent sources.  Considered together, the reasons discussed below, lead the Tribunal to conclude that his claims are not credible. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is in genuine fear of persecution for a Convention reason or that there is a real chance that he will suffer serious or significant harm on his return to Pakistan.”

14. The Tribunal did not believe the applicant’s claim to be in “real danger” because he did not join the JUD, that he was in danger as he refused to meet the leader, or that he was nearly captured by the JUD. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not suffered any harm by the JUD, and considered that if the “Jihadist organisation” had been in serious pursuit of the applicant, that he would not have been able to get away so easily. Further, that he would not have delayed his departure to Australia from Pakistan by two months after his visa was issued ([29] at CB 103).

15. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant owned the company “Gulistan SI Dental Corporation”, as the evidence regarding his involvement was “vague and inconsistent”, and his explanation for how he ran his international business, and its closure, “simplistic”. Further, that the internet link to his company would not have been active if he had closed his company in 2011. The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence in regard to his “partner” in the business to be inconsistent ([30] at CB 104).

16. Further, the Tribunal stated that it did ([31] at CB 104):

    “…not find it plausible that an organisation banned by the Pakistan authorities and its leadership and infrastructure put under pressure in 2008, would two years later be pursuing the applicant, who had no commitment to the Jihadist cause and contributed a few packets of tablet samples and some left-over instruments; nor that they would take the risk of taking him to some of their operational locations; or that the head of the JUD himself would be calling or threatening him over his failure to work with them. The Tribunal has considered but finds the applicant's responses at paragraph 18 unpersuasive and circular in their logic.”

17. The Tribunal’s concerns as to the applicant’s truthfulness were “compounded by his inability to offer a credible explanation” as to why Wagga Wagga Hospital had stated to the department that they had no record of the applicant visiting the hospital on 7 December 2011 and issuing a medical certificate ([32] at CB 104). Further, the Tribunal found it significant that the applicant stated that there was “peace” in Pakistan and that he “no longer” had a problem, and that he did not know if he would be attacked or not, “God knew better” ([33] at CB 104).

18. Considered cumulatively, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not been truthful about his experiences in, and the reasons he fears returning to, Pakistan. The Tribunal held that the applicant’s claims had been fabricated for the “purpose of achieving a migration outcome” ([34] at CB 104).  The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or that there was a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm if he were to return to Pakistan ([35] – [36] at CB 104 to CB 105).

Application before the Court

1. The application to the Court is in the following unparticularised terms:

   “1. Applicant has disability his case is at another worker compensation (insurance company Allianz (PAYG.)

   2. Tribunal denied about my documents medical tretment at hospital.

   3. Tribunal decision did not give To the applicant before the hearing independent information That it had about L.T & JUD in Pakistan.”

   [Errors in original.]

Before the Court

1. The applicant attended at a first Court date on 3 September 2014 and was assisted by an interpreter in the Urdu language. A number of orders were made on this day for the conduct of this matter before the Court. The applicant was provided with the opportunity to file any further evidence by way of affidavit and any amended application.

2. The applicant appeared in person before the Court today and was assisted by an interpreter in the Punjabi and Urdu languages. Ms S Given appeared for the Minister. The Minister has filed written submissions in these proceedings.

3. As set out above, the applicant filed an affidavit made of 23 January 2015. The applicant’s affidavit was in the following terms:

   “I AM SUBMITTING ORIGINAL MEDICAL

   PROOF FOR OPERATION IN HOSPITAL WAGGA WAGGA

   PROOF OF DISABILITY AND TREATMENT

   UN CONVENTION DOCUMENT”

4. The annexed documents can properly be seen as follows:

   1)A medical certificate dated 17 January 2015 stating that the applicant was unfit for work.

   2)A copy of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

   3)A letter dated 16 September 2014 (two copies) from the Medico Legal Officer with the NSW Health – Murrumbidgee Local Health Network, said to contain enclosed documents.

   4)A letter dated 12 November 2014 from the same source said to enclose annexures.

   5)It is not clear whether the remainder of the documents, which are various medical reports, were provided to the applicant as annexures, or enclosures, to either of these two letters.

   6)One of these documents headed “Medical Certificate” and dated “7/12/11” is, in large part, identical to the document reproduced at CB 32 (see at [7] and [19] above and further below).

5. The applicant pressed that the entirety of his affidavit and the annexures be read into evidence. In essence, I understood the applicant’s position to be that he had a number of health problems, that he should be granted protection in Australia, and that the documents annexed to this affidavit support the proposition of his poor health.

6. The applicant was unable to explain the relevance of items 1, 2, and 5 (at [31] above) to the question of revealing jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. None of these documents were before the Tribunal, other than for the medical certificate (CB 32, and see item 6 at [31] above). I could not see the relevance of any of these documents to a fact in issue before the Court and these documents were not read into evidence.

7. What was read into evidence was the first sentence of the affidavit: “I am submitting original medical”, and the document headed “Medical Certificate” dated 7 December 2011 and the covering letters from the Murrumbidgee Local Health (see further below at [51]).

Consideration

1. Ground one of the application does not assert error, let alone jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. It is a mere statement of the applicant’s claimed physical situation, similar to his claim before the Tribunal. Before the Court, he did not offer any explanation as to how this statement asserted jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision. No jurisdictional error is revealed.

2. Ground three asserts that the Tribunal did not give the applicant, at the hearing before it, information it had concerning the JUD and the LET.

3. In the circumstances presented, there was no obligation on the Tribunal to give this information to the applicant before the hearing. This is a case where s.422B of the Act operates to make the matters dealt with in Division 4 of Part 7 of the Act the exhaustive statement of the natural justice hearing rule (Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2010] HCA 23; (2010) 267 ALR 204).

1. The giving of information to an applicant is dealt with in that Division by operation of s.424A of the Act. That section provides that the Tribunal must give to an applicant in writing information which it considers would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. There is no legal error in the Tribunal’s discharging its obligation, pursuant to s.424A of the Act, after the hearing.

2. However, by use of the facility made available by s.424AA of the Act, the Tribunal is also able to discharge any obligation arising under s.424A of the Act, by giving the information to an applicant orally at the hearing.

3. On the available evidence, the Tribunal drew the applicant’s attention at the hearing to country information concerning the LET and the JUD (see [16] – [17] at CB 101).

4. However, I agree with the Minister that if the applicant’s ground, which is not particularised, seeks to complain that this information should have been given to him, it is information that is exempt from the obligation in s.424A(4) of the Act, by operation of s.424A(3)(a) of the Act. Ground three is not made out.

5. Ground two is unclear. It asserts the Tribunal “denied” his document concerning medical treatment at the hospital. In context, this appears to be a complaint that the Tribunal did not accept that he had attended at the Wagga Wagga Base hospital on 7 December 2011. This was relevant to his non-appearance at an interview with the Minister’s delegate.

6. The delegate’s decision record reveals that the applicant had been invited to an interview, which was scheduled for 13 December 2011. The applicant did not attend and after being contacted by the delegate, advised that he had been sick and had provided a medical certificate to his employer with a request it be forwarded to the department (CB 41).

7. This certificate was subsequently faxed to the department on 20 December 2011 (CB 32). The delegate reports that he contacted the records section at the relevant hospital and was told there was no record of any attendance by the applicant on 7 December 2011 and that no certificate was issued to the applicant.

8. The delegate concluded that the certificate presented by the applicant was forged and that he had no credible reason not to attend the interview. The delegate proceeded to make the decision on what was before him.

9. I understand from the applicant that the provision of what is said to be a certified copy of the medical certificate now, and said to be from the records of the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital, was to show that the reason he did not attend at the interview with the delegate was that he was unable to do so because he was unwell. Further, that the finding that the document was a forgery was incorrect.

10. In submissions before the Court, the Minister pointed to a number of features of the applicant’s documentary evidence that meant that the applicant’s document was not of assistance and that the document produced in the Court Book (at CB 32) should be the focus of attention.

11. These submission directed attention to the handwritten numbers at the top right hand corner of each of the pages of the Court Book. I agree with the Minister’s submissions that these are the folio numbers from the respective files relating to the applicant’s case before the department and the Tribunal.

12. As set out above, the copy of the medical certificate is reproduced at CB 32. That reveals a handwritten number “30” at the top right hand of the page. The applicant’s copy of the certificate, annexed to his affidavit, also contains the number “30” handwritten in the top right hand corner of the page. On any plain reading, it is identical in shape and form to what is reproduced at CB 32.

13. The relevant document also contained a printed number at the bottom left hand corner of the page. This is the number “32”. This is an identical position on the page, and in identical form, to what appears at CB 32.

14. I note also that the “covering letters” from the Murrumbidgee Local Health Network to the applicant made no specific reference to the medical certificate.

15. The applicant’s medical certificate document bears a stamp as follows:

    “Medical Administration

    Wagga Wagga Base Hospital

    PO Box 159

    Wagga Wagga NSW 2650”

16. In the circumstances, I agree with the Minister that this stamp could only have been affixed on a copy of the page that appeared in the Court Book (at CB 32). In all, there can be no dispute that the applicant’s document containing the stamp from the hospital was not before the Tribunal. On the evidence, what was before the Tribunal was what is reproduced at CB 32.

17. The Tribunal raised the matter of the medical certificate, as before the delegate and before it, with the applicant at the hearing (see [24] at CB 102 to CB 103):

    “In the context of s.424AA of the Migration Act, the Tribunal draw to the applicant's attention and invited his comment or response on information in the delegate's decision record regarding the medical certificate dated 7 December 2011 from Wagga Wagga Hospital provided by the applicant on 20 December 2011 to explain his failure to attend his Departmental interview on 13 December 2011. This information was that when the Department checked the medical certificate with Wagga Wagga Hospital, they were advised that there was no record of the applicant's attendance at the hospital on 7 December 2011; and that the hospital did not issue that document; leading the Department to conclude that the medical certificate was a forged document. The Tribunal explained that the relevance of this information was that it might raise doubts about the applicant's truthfulness.”

18. Some care must be taken with how the Tribunal dealt with this. Unlike the delegate, the Tribunal made no finding that the medical certificate presented to the department was a forgery. Rather, the Tribunal’s finding was derived from the applicant’s inability to provide to the Tribunal a credible explanation concerning the report from the hospital that there was no record of his attendance on that day ([32] at CB 104 and see [61] below).

19. When viewed in this light, and on what was before it, this finding was reasonably open to the Tribunal. The applicant’s explanation is at [25] (at CB 103). The applicant has not provided any evidence of what transpired at the hearing with the Tribunal, despite opportunity to do so. The only relevant evidence of what occurred at the hearing are the references in the Tribunal’s decision record.

20. The applicant would have been on notice, at least as at June 2012 when he received the delegate’s decision, that the matter of the certificate was an issue in the review (CB 41). There is no evidence from the applicant as to when he sought to access the bundle of medical documents from the Wagga Wagga Base Hospital, which he now puts before the Court as annexures to his affidavit.

21. The covering letters from the Medico Legal Officer with the Murrumbidgee Local Health Network are dated 16 September 2014, and 12 November 2014. It is not clear with which letter the medical certificate, if either, was enclosed. However, in any event, given that the applicant was on notice since June 2012, there is no evidence from the applicant why he did not seek to access these documents at an earlier date while his matter was before the Tribunal. There is no evidence that the applicant asked the Tribunal for more time to obtain the documents he has now provided to the Court.

22. Notwithstanding the above, even if the Tribunal’s finding could be said to include some factual error as to the existence, or provenance, of the medical certificate he provided to the delegate, such factual error, in the circumstances, would not rise to a jurisdictional error.

23. There are two aspects for consideration here. First, the nature of the matter involving the medical certificate cannot be said to have resulted in a failure by the Tribunal to consider the applicant’s claims to fear harm in his home country (Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNPG [2010] FCAFC 51; (2010) 115 ALD 303, Chen v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCAFC 56, SZQRW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCAFC 164 at [42] – [48] and MZXSA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 123 at [83]).

24. Second, the Tribunal’s rejection of the applicant’s explanation to it, as to the matter of the certificate, was a part of the Tribunal’s adverse finding as to the applicant’s credibility ([32] at CB 104):

    “As put to the applicant at paragraph 24, the Tribunal's concerns about the applicant's truthfulness are compounded by his inability to offer a credible explanation as to why the medical certificate provided by or on behalf of the applicant stated that he was seen at Wagga Wagga Hospital on 7 December 2011; while the hospital advised the Department that they had no record of this and that they did not issue the medical certificate.”

    [Emphasis added.]

25. However, I have regard to what was said by Gaudron and McHugh JJ in Minister for Immigration v Rajamanikkam [2002] HCA 32; 210 CLR 222 at [58]:

    “Whether a decision would or would not have been made without a particular factual finding depends on indications to that effect in the decision, the reasons for decision or the decision making process. And unless it is possible to say on a proper analysis of the decision, the reasons for decision or the decision making process that, had a particular finding not been made, the decision in question would not have been reached, it is, in our view, impossible to say that the decision was based on that finding.”

26. The question, therefore, can be posed as to whether the Tribunal’s decision would have been made absent the finding in regard to the applicant’s explanation about the medical certificate.

27. On a fair reading of the Tribunal’s findings and reasons, the impugning of the applicant’s credibility arose from his claims and evidence about events in Pakistan and his claimed fears. As the Tribunal said, the matter of his explanation about the medical certificate “compounded” its concerns.

28. In my view, on a fair reading of the Tribunal’s decision record, its decision would have been reached even without the matter of the certificate, given the comprehensive rejection of the totality of the applicant’s claims. The finding in relation to the certificate was made in addition to that central rejection of the truthfulness of his evidence. In all the circumstances, no jurisdictional error is revealed.

Conclusion

1. In all, the applicant’s grounds do not reveal jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal. The application to the Court should be dismissed. I will make an order accordingly.

I certify that the preceding sixty-six (66) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Nicholls

Associate: 

Date: 23 November 2015