SZVTI v Minister for Immigration

[2016] FCCA 926

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZVTI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2016] FCCA 926

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Migration & Refugees Division) – Protection (Class XA) visa – whether the Tribunal erred in finding the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution – whether the Tribunal failed to take country information into account – no jurisdictional error identified – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36(2)(a), 36(2)(aa), 476

Applicant: SZVTI

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 3370 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 21 April 2016

Date of Last Submission: 21 April 2016

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 21 April 2016

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the First Respondent: Ms H Musgrove
Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

1. The name of the second respondent be changed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the need to file any further document in this regard is dispensed with.

2. The application is dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the amount of $5800.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3370 of 2014

SZVTI

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application within the Court’s jurisdiction under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in respect of a decision of the Tribunal made on 4 November 2014 affirming a decision of the delegate not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa. The applicant was found to be a citizen of Egypt and his claims were assessed against that country.

2. The applicant was granted a Maritime Crew (subclass ZM988) Visa on 19 February 2013 and entered Australia on that visa on 21 February 2013. The applicant departed Australia on 24 February 2013. The applicant returned to Australia on 29 March 2013 and deserted the vessel, on which he had been a member of the crew, on 3 April 2013.   It was not until 1 November 2013 that the applicant applied for protection. 

3. The applicant claimed to fear harm in Egypt because of his support of the Muslim Brotherhood. The applicant alleged that he had demonstrated in 2011 against President Hosni Mubarak during the Arab Spring in July 2013 at the time of the ousting of Mohamed Morsi, the applicant’s uncle was shot and stabbed and a paternal cousin was detained. The applicant said he faced harassment having the same name as three persons of interest to the Egyptian authorities, and that he had been once arrested and later cleared in relation to suspected drug possession. 

4. On 3 March 2014 the delegate refused to grant the applicant a protection visa, and the applicant applied for a review on 9 April 2014.  By letter dated 22 September 2014 the applicant was invited to attend a hearing on 10 October 2014 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant appeared on that day to give evidence and present arguments, and was assisted by an interpreter, and was also accompanied at the hearing by his advisor being a registered migration agent. 

5. In a post-hearing submission dated 31 October 2014 the applicant claimed to be receiving medication for depression and anxiety. The Tribunal took into account, in relation to assessing the applicant’s credit and the inconsistencies in his evidence, the applicant’s alleged mental and physical health and found “none of these factors prevented the applicant from giving meaningful evidence at the Tribunal hearing”. The Tribunal identified in its reasons the alleged workplace accident that the applicant alleged had affected him, and made reference to his assertion that he could remember events but not dates. 

6. The Tribunal addressed the applicant’s allegation of suffering anxiety and depression and said:

   I am not satisfied that such factors are a cause, or even part of the cause, of deficiencies in [the applicant’s] evidence. I find that, to a significant extent in this matter, he is not a truthful witness.

   That adverse finding followed identification of the applicant’s evidence and the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence. The Tribunal also referred to the factors concerning the applicant’s depression, injury and loss of his grandmother. The Tribunal also said in relation to the depression, injury, loss of his grandmother or anxiety that:

   …none of these factors satisfactorily explain the many deficiencies in his evidence about his mother and sister.  I find that the whole story is a concoction…

   The Tribunal found that the applicant’s story, in that regard, was concocted and designed to extend the disturbances of 2013 closer to the present day and to illustrate falsely the extent to which the applicant’s family remained a significant target of political foes in Egypt.

7. The Tribunal found the applicant’s propensity to concoct and embellish evidence meant that the Tribunal had difficulty accepting that he had been confused with three similarly named criminals on various occasions. The Tribunal was prepared to accept the applicant had faced difficulties in the past, but said the authorities had provided the applicant with documentation to help prevent confusion and protect him from the consequences of the latter, and in those circumstances the Tribunal gave the claim about confusion of identities very little weight. The Tribunal also gave little weight to the evidence of the applicant about being detained following a brawl at a local club, and the Tribunal found that having considered the applicant’s claims separately and cumulatively, it was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm in Egypt. It was in those circumstances the Tribunal found the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under s.36(2)(a). The Tribunal found it was not satisfied there were substantial grounds for believing as a necessary and reasonably foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Egypt, that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that it was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for protection under s.36(2)(aa).

8. On 17 February 2015 a Judge of the Court listed the matter for hearing today and gave the applicant an opportunity to file an amended application, affidavit evidence and submissions. The applicant has filed affidavit evidence annexing the transcript, as well as in his first affidavit purporting to identify the facts surrounding his claims. The evidence in that affidavit was admitted only as submission and not as evidence of truth of the fact.  The applicant tendered a further affidavit in which he annexed material that was not before the Tribunal seeking to advance the applicant’s claims. That material was also limited to use as submission and the documents that were not before the Tribunal were rejected from the tender. The applicant also sought to tender two documents in Arabic relating to the applicant, which the applicant acknowledged had not been before the Tribunal, and that material was rejected by the Court.

9. The applicant’s claims in the application are as follows:

   1. The Refugee Review Tribunal Tribunal's (RRT's) Decision in my case fails to give due weight

   to key evidence that I presented to the RRT, establishing that I am in serious danger of real physical and mental trauma by the current Egyptian pro-military regime.

   2. The RRT Member simply states that I have presented the evidence to be review d herein below, then too lightly dismisses this key evidence, without citing adequate cause. I will try to show how this is so, below.

   3. My strong support for and relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood began during my university days. This was during the time of the brutal Husni Mubarak military regime in Egypt. I participated actively in demonstrations, even though it was very risky to do so, due to police surveillance of participants. I further declared my opposition to the Mubarak regime during the Egyptian Arab Spring, once again participating in demonstrations.

   4. I am not unique in my family for holding such anti-regime views and for seeking to put them into action. However both my extended family and myself have suffered for this, given that the Mubarak regime has now been replaced by a very similar regime. My maternal uncle, Ehab, died after being repeatedly shot and stabbed by regime agents in July 2013, due to his opposition to the Mubarak regime. One of my paternal cousins was detained for opposing the regime and was killed in prison. When this cousin's brother spoke up against his brother's murder in prison, he was himself imprisoned for seven years. Two of my other cousins, Muhammad and Adel, are also imprisoned for opposing the regime and we have been given no information about what their fate will be. In the eyes of the authorities, my extended family is under permanent suspicion due to its proud record of opposing military regime injustice.

   5. I also face regime oppression simply due to my name, which is the same as that of three other individuals sought by police. Since I work as a seaman, I am required to pass through a number of Egyptian seaports. This brings me to the attention of authorities, whom are initially attracted by my surname. I suffer violent interrogations by Egyptian police due to my surname alone. Even when I submit a document clearing up the misunderstanding over my name, the damage has already been done, since I am now fully under the police spotlight. Inevitably attention now turns to my record of opposing the regime, and I am thus interrogated about my relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. This same oppressive sequence is repeated inexorably, every time I must interact with police; it make it impossible for me to conduct a normal life, free from the authorities' oppression and brutality.

   6. I was detained by police on a ludicrous charge of using drugs, which the authorities did not even bother to substantiate with evidence. The police never intended for me to be convicted of the offence of drug use; their purpose was rather to use this spurious allegation to deepen their unrelenting persecution of me. I was detained for four days, during which police physically and psychologically abused me. Then I was simply let go, while police prepared a new attack upon me. In another of the ongoing campaign of persecution against my person, I was detained for one day, accused of 'smuggling' tobacco. Also, I was detained for one further day, after another family clashed with me.

   7. The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada concurs that many Brotherhood supporters and members are detained without ever being charged with a crime, adding that 'many of the arrests and detentions of Muslim Brotherhood members and suspected supporters has been done in accordance with a variety of laws, rather than through arbitrary detention under the emergency law' (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 4 November 2013). This corroborates my claim of having been continually persecuted on a number of varying bases, although always with the intention of targeting my pro-Brotherhood activism (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 4 November2013).

   8. This ongoing oppression made daily life quite unbearable for me in Egypt, and I felt compelled to flee the country in April 2013, in order to seek protection. Due to this continuing persecution – which must been seen in context against the picture of visibly worsening regime violence – it was clear that I stood in deepening danger of being killed by the regime. I never received a formal court trial in any of these continuing attacks. I repeat, therefore, once again, that the whole aim of the police’s ongoing persecution of myself was to punish me for my anti-regime activism and strong support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

   9. The RRT Member mentions much of the above testimony, but manifestly fails to piece it all together. Seen as a whole, it amounts to a consistent picture of persecution. Broken down into a number of formless 'incidents' (most of which the Member discounts, without stating any substantive counter-evidence), the Member's Decision, I respectfully suggest, makes them appear as a disjointed series of utterly disconnected and perhaps unlucky events This is not at all accurate; all the events cited occurred (or continued to occur) due to the central, driving, motivation of Egyptian authorities to persecute me, due to my anti-regime activism and my strong support for the Muslim Brotherhood. The police wish to physically and psychologically break my will to resist the dictatorship. They did not succeed, but they managed to make me fear for my life at their hands, and I have developed a psychological and emotional condition as a result.

   10. I continue to oppose Egypt's cruel Government and I have demonstrated against Egyptian regime. There should be no doubt that this continuing anti-regime activism on my part has been reported to Egyptian authorities, as the al-Sisi regime has a network of strong supporters and informants in Australia, co-ordinated by Ms. Reham Maklad < 56>.

   11. Furthermore, the RRT Member's assertion that Egypt is becoming more stable is clearly refuted by realities on the ground there. In other words, despite his unsupported claim, recent country information from respected and credible sources testify to precisely the opposite being the case. Amnesty International reports a 'surge in arbitrary arrests, detentions and harrowing incidents of torture and deaths in police custody recorded by Amnesty International provide strong evidence of the sharp deterioration in human rights in Egypt' over the preceding 12 months. Amnesty continues that between 16,000 to 40,000 people 'were detained or indicted between July 2013 and mid-May 2014', with 'torture and enforced disappearances in police and military detention facilities' being ' widespread', and 'security forces effectively [being granted a free rein to commit human rights violations with impunity' . This sickening violence particularly targets the Muslim Brotherhood and its supporters (Amnesty International, 3 July 2014).

   12. Amnesty details the methods of torture currently being employed by Egyptian police against persons they detain who are perceived as anti-regime:

   Among the methods of torture employed are techniques previously used by state security during Mubarak's rule. These include the use of electric shocks, rape, handcuffing detainees and suspending them from open doors. Another hanging method, known as “the grill”, involves handcuffing the detainee’s hands and legs toan iron rod and suspending the rod between two opposite chairs until the detainee's legs go numb. Security forces then start using electric shocks on the person's legs.

   One of the most shocking cases documented by Amnesty International was that of M.R.S, 23, a student arrested in February 2014 near Nasr City in Cairo. He said he was held for 47 days and was tortured and raped during his interrogation. He is currently out of prison but the case is still pending.

   “They cut my shirt, blindfolded me with it and handcuffed me from behind...they beat me with batons all over my body, particularly on the chest, back and face…Then they put two wires in my left and right little fingers and gave me electric shocks four or five times,” he said.

   He also gave a horrifying account of how he was sexually assaulted and raped.

   “The national security officer caught my testicle and started to squeeze it...I was screaming from the pain and bent my legs to protect my testicles then he inserted his fingers in my anus...he was wearing something plastic on his fingers...he repeated this five times,” he said.

   He also reported being beaten on the penis with a stick. He was then raped repeatedly by one or more security guards before being forced to sing song in support of the Egyptian army “Teslam Al Ayadi”.

   In another case, Mahmoud Mohamed Ahmed Hussein, an 18-year-old student, was arrested on his way home on the third anniversary of the 2011 uprising in El Marcg, Cairo at noon. He believes he was singled out for wearing a shirt bearing a logo of the “25 January Revolution” and a scarf with a slogan of the “Nation without Torture” campaign. He was blindfolded and forced into “confessing” to possessing explosives and belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood after hours of being beaten, subjected to electric shocks, including on the testicles, and being interrogated by national security officers. Mahmoud Mohamed Ahmed Hussein remains in prison (Amnesty International, 3 July 2014).

   13. Amnesty adds that 'At least 80 detainees have died in custody since 3 July 2013'(Amnesty International, 3 July 2014). The same report documents the current regime's continuing employment of arbitrary arrest and detention, and the use of 'confessions' extracted under torture being permitted by Egyptian courts. These findings are corroborated by other sources. Thus, the Los Angeles Times reports that some 37 suspected Muslim Brotherhood detainees were killed on 18 August 2013, when they were asphyxiated by tear gas fired into a vehicle where they were being detained (King/Los Angeles Times 23 October 2013; BRC 22 October 2013). The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada reports that the legal advisor for the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR) also reports the use of torture against Muslim Brotherhood members and suspected supporters in prison. Prison conditions in Egypt are described as 'appalling', and prisoners are said to be 'mistreated' (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 4 November 2013). The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada continues:

   13. The EIPR legal advisor indicated that formal membership in the Muslim Brotherhood is not necessary for someone to be at risk of arrest. He said that if someone is perceived to be a member or supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood, they face the risk of imprisonment. He added that the risk of arrest even applies to “mere supporters” without any active involvement with the Muslim Brotherhood, and people who do not support the Muslim Brotherhood, but who have demonstrated against the excessive use of force against them. He added that one of the detainees killed by the tear-gas thrown in the vehicle on 18 August 2013 was an active supporter of the removal of President Morsi and opposed the Muslim Brotherhood, but was demonstrating against the excessive use of force against Muslim Brotherhood supporters when he was arrested. The EIPR legal advisor indicated that Muslim Brotherhood membership brings a higher risk than non-membership, but being at the wrong place and the wrong time is “sufficient to be arrested” (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 4 November 2013).

   14. According to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada:

   He added that most of the detainees are being charged and presented before a prosecutor and have court cases. However, he also said that there is no guarantee of a fair trial, and there is a fear of an unfair judicial process. He said that, according to lawyers who have appeared before prosecutors for such cases, the prosecutors are 'extremely politicized'. He also said that many lawyers have indicated that prosecutors have prevented lawyers from representing Muslim Brotherhood detainees, for example, by telling them to appear at the wrong time. Similarly, AI [Amnesty International] states that detainees from pro-Morsi sit-ins have been 'deprived of their basic legal rights' including being “denied prompt access to their lawyers and relatives, or an opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of heir detention after their arrest”. AI added that lawyers have not been able to attend investigations and detention renewals for reasons such as being barred from them, not being informed of the location, date or time, and because some were conducted during curfew hours (Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 4 November 2013).

   15. The Amnesty International report cited above concludes that: 'The Egyptian judiciary has proved time and time again that it is either unwilling or incapable of conducting an impartial and fair trial when it comes to those perceived to support the former president' (Amnesty International, 3 July 2014).

   16. The Amnesty report also makes abundantly clear that Egyptian police persecution of perceived Muslim Brotherhood supporters is not restricted merely to the Brotherhood's leaders, as the RRT Member suggests. Indeed, the Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram reports that the country's Interior Ministry has set jail sentences of five years imprisonment for in any manner 'associating' with the Muslim Brotherhood – including by merely joining its demonstrations (Ahram Online/MENA/AFP, 26 December2013).

   17. Once arrested and charged with supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, any person in today’s Egypt faces the real possibility of trial not be civilian judges, but by military officers. According to Human Rights Watch (HRW), an 'October 27 decree by President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt vastly extended the reach of the country's military courts and risks militarizing the prosecution of protesters and other government opponents'. HRW predicts that 'many more civilians who engage in protests can now expect to face trial before uniformed judges subject to the orders of their military superiors' (Human Rights Watch, 17 November 2014).

   18. I concede that I did not always explain myself with the greatest clarity at my RRT hearing. The Member accepts that I was suffering from clinical depression at the time, but fails to take this in consideration when stating that my evidence is ‘contradictory’. With respect, my inability on the day to explain myself clearly is not the same thing as contradicting myself. Nor indeed did I 'concoct and embellish' evidence at my hearing. Indeed there is absolutely need for me to do this, as the actual facts on the ground in today's Egypt's treatment of people who it perceives to be supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood is grim enough – as the current submission has detailed, from respected country informational sources.

   19. References

   Ahram Online!MENA/AFP (26 December 2013) 'Egypt’s Interior Ministry Details Sentences for Associating with “Terrorist” Brotherhood', available at:

   International (3 July 2014) 'Egypt: Catastrophic Decline in Human Rights One Year after Morsi', available at:

   (22 October 2013) 'Egypt Police to be Tried Over Detainee Tear-gas Deaths', available at: Initiative for Personal Rights (EIPR). 30 October 2013. Telephone interview with a legal advisor.

   Human Rights Watch (17 November 2014) 'Egypt: Unprecedented Expansion of Military Courts Decree Broadens Jurisdiction Over Civilians', available at: news/2014/11/17/egypt-unprecedented-expansion-military-courts

   Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (4 November 2013) 'Egypt: Treatment of members of the Muslim Brotherhood, including leaders, returnee members and suspected members, by authorities following the removal of President Mohamed Morsi (3 July 2013-30 October 2013)', available at:

   http:/ / 72ea84.html

   King, Laura/Los Angeles Times (23 October 2013) 'Egypt Orders 4 Officers Held in Detainee Deaths; The Move May Lead to Greater Scrutiny of How Authorities Treat Muslim Brotherhood', available at:

   htto:// Guardian (11 October 2013) 'Canadian Pair Describe “Shared Trauma” of Ordeal in Egyptian Prison', available at:

   type="1">

   No amended application or submissions were filed pursuant to the orders made by the Court on 17 February 2015. At the commencement of the hearing the Court explained to the applicant that the nature of the hearing was to determine whether the decision of the Tribunal was affected by relevant legal error. The Court explained that relevant legal error meant that the Tribunal had either exceeded its statutory powers or denied the applicant procedural fairness. The applicant confirmed that he understood the nature of the hearing.

   There was also a potential issue raised by the solicitor for the first respondent as to whether the applicant, in annexing medical material, was suggesting that he was unable to participate in the hearing today. The applicant confirmed that the medical material went to the claims that he was advancing before the Tribunal and that he was able to participate in the hearing today. I am satisfied, having heard the applicant, that he was able to meaningfully participate in the hearing today.

   From the bar table, the applicant raised the claims that he had identified before the Tribunal and maintained that the Tribunal decision was not justified and was not fair. The applicant maintained that he would be killed if he went back to Egypt and said that he did not want to go back to Egypt. The applicant referred to the confusion that may arise in relation to his names, a matter which the Tribunal had clearly addressed. The applicant suggested that the member of the Tribunal was not taking the applicant seriously in evaluating the applicant’s claims. 

   Having read the transcript, there is nothing to support the assertion that the Tribunal member was doing anything other than providing the applicant with a genuine hearing and the decision of the Tribunal was entirely consistent with the Tribunal addressing the claims and arguments of the applicant.

   The applicant identified that he had been working constructively here in Australia and had been assisting his mother and sister who were still in Egypt. The Court explained to the applicant that it did not have power to revisit the Tribunal’s decision on compassionate grounds and that the Court’s jurisdiction was confined to an ability to set aside the Tribunal’s decision only if satisfied it was affected by relevant legal error. The applicant maintained that he was scared and did not want to go back to Egypt but nothing said by the applicant from the bar table identified any arguable jurisdictional error. 

   In relation to the grounds in the applicant’s application, it was a matter for the Tribunal to determine what weight to give the evidence before the Tribunal and, it was for the Tribunal to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution and for the Tribunal to determine whether there was a risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm. Nothing said in ground 1 of the application identifies any jurisdictional error. 

   In relation to ground 2, it is clear that the Tribunal took into account the applicant’s evidence and it was a matter for the Tribunal to determine the weight to give that evidence. Nothing in ground 2 identifies any jurisdictional error. In relation to ground 3, the applicant’s contention in relation to his activities with the Muslim brotherhood was a matter for the Tribunal to determine and nothing said in ground 3 identifies any jurisdictional error. I accept the first respondent’s submission that ground 4 is in substance an impermissible invitation for a merits review and does not identify any jurisdictional error. 

   In relation to ground 5, it is clear that the Tribunal took into account the applicant’s claims concerning his name and the adverse findings by the Tribunal were open on the material before the Tribunal and cannot be said to lack an evident and intelligible justification. Ground 5 fails to identify any arguable jurisdictional error. In relation to ground 6, I accept the first respondent’s submission that this is in substance an impermissible attempt at merits review and does not identify any jurisdictional error. 

   In relation to ground 7, it was a matter for the Tribunal to determine what country information it accepted and ground 7 fails to make out any jurisdictional error. In relation to ground 8, I accept the first respondent’s submission that this is in the instance an impermissible invitation for a merits review. Ground 8 fails to make out any jurisdictional error. In relation to ground 9, it is clear from the Tribunal’s reference to having considered all of the claims and evidence in this case separately and cumulatively and from the structure and reasons of the Tribunal, that the Tribunal took into account the whole of the material before it and nothing said in ground 9 identifies any jurisdictional error. 

   In relation to ground 10, the suggestion that the applicant’s activities had been reported to the Egyptian authorities was not evidence that was before the Tribunal and is not a claim that arose on the material before the Tribunal. Ground 10 fails to identify any jurisdictional error. In relation to ground 11, it was a matter for the Tribunal to determine what country information to accept and ground 11 is in substance an impermissible challenge to the adverse findings by the Tribunal. Ground 11 fails to identify any jurisdictional error. 

   In relation to ground 12, it was again a matter for the Tribunal to determine what weight to give country information and nothing said in ground 12 identifies any jurisdictional error. In relation to ground 13, this again is an attempt to cavil with the adverse findings of fact by the Tribunal in relation to country information which was a matter for the Tribunal to determine. Ground 13 fails to identify any arguable jurisdictional error. The second paragraph of ground 13 is also an impermissible challenge to the adverse findings of fact made by the Tribunal and does not identify any jurisdictional error. 

   In relation to ground 14, this is again a challenge to the adverse findings by the Tribunal and it was for the Tribunal to determine what country information it accepted. Ground 14 fails to identify any jurisdictional error. In relation to ground 15, this is again an impermissible challenge to the adverse findings of fact by the Tribunal. Ground 15 does not identify any arguable jurisdictional error. In relation to ground 16, this is again an impermissible challenge to the adverse findings of fact made by the Tribunal. Ground 16 does not identify any arguable jurisdictional error. 

   Ground 17 is also an impermissible challenge to the adverse findings of fact by the Tribunal and does not identify any arguable jurisdictional error. In relation to ground 18, it is clear that the Tribunal took into account the applicant’s allegations of his depression, injury and anxiety and the adverse findings by the Tribunal in relation to the applicant’s credit were open on the material before the Tribunal and cannot be said to lack in evident and intelligible justification. Nothing in ground 18 identifies any jurisdictional error. 

   The references to country information in ground 19 do not identify any jurisdictional error by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the application is dismissed. 

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

Associate: 

Date:  4 May 2016