SZVVA v Minister for Immigration

[2016] FCCA 2204

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZVVA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2016] FCCA 2204

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application to review decision of former Refugee Review Tribunal – no jurisdictional error.

Cases cited:

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507; [2001] HCA 17
Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H (2001) 179 ALR 425; [2001] HCA 28

Applicant: SZVVA

First Respondent:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION
Second Respondent:	ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 3439 of 2014

Judgment of: Judge Barnes

Hearing date: 11 August 2016

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 11 August 2016

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:	In Person
Solicitors for the Respondents:	Minter Ellison Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The name of the Second Respondent be amended to “Administrative Appeals Tribunal”.

2. The application be dismissed.

3. The Applicant pay the costs of the First Respondent fixed in the sum of $6,000.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 3439 of 2014

SZVVA

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (now the Administrative Appeals Tribunal) dated 7 November 2014.  The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the First Respondent not to grant the Applicant a protection visa. 

2. The Applicant, a citizen of China, arrived in Australia in September 2013 and applied for a protection visa on 4 October 2013.  He claimed in his protection visa application that he left China because he feared the Chinese government might discover he was still practising Falun Gong underground. 

3. He claimed he commenced practising Falun Gong in 1996 and surrendered his Falun Gong materials in 1999 when Falun Gong was declared to be an evil cult, but that he still practised Falun Gong secretly.  He also claimed that his aunt, who had lupus, became blind in 2005 and that in 2007 he suggested that she and her husband try Falun Gong, which he said he had been practising for some 10 years.  He claimed he gave his aunt and uncle a handwritten booklet and that his aunt had been practising Falun Gong since then. 

4. He claimed her practice was discovered by the local police in 2013 and that he and his uncle decided to leave China to avoid further investigation and possible persecution by the Chinese government.  He claimed to fear that the local government may further investigate his aunt’s Falun Gong practice and eventually find out that she obtained the Falun Gong booklet from him and that he would be subject to persecution due to his Falun Gong practice. 

5. The Applicant attended an interview with a delegate of the Minister on 4 February 2014.  His claims at that interview are summarised in the delegate’s decision.  He gave the delegate three photographs of himself holding a banner (said to contain comments critical of the Chinese government) on a street in Auburn in Australia. 

6. The application was refused by the delegate who found that the Applicant was not truthful and had fabricated his claim to be a Falun Gong practitioner.  In particular, the delegate considered that the Applicant’s level of knowledge of Falun Gong was superficial and not what might reasonably be expected of a person who had practised Falun Gong since 1996.  

7. The Applicant sought review by the Tribunal on 20 March 2014.  He attended a Tribunal hearing (at which he had the assistance of an interpreter) on 18 September 2014. 

8. As indicated, the Tribunal made its decision on 7 November 2014.  In its reasons for decision it summarised the Applicant’s claims made in writing.  It referred to the Applicant’s oral evidence to the delegate and set out, in some considerable detail, the Applicant's evidence at the Tribunal hearing.  

9. The Tribunal recorded that at the hearing the Applicant initially repeated his original claim to have started practising Falun Gong in 1996.  He also volunteered that he had helped hand out Falun Gong pamphlets in the first half of 1997 and continued to do so after Falun Gong was banned.  He claimed he did so more than 10 times after 1999 and stopped in 2010 or 2011. 

10. The Tribunal recorded that it raised with the Applicant the fact that he first made the claim of handing out pamphlets at the Tribunal hearing.  It set out his explanation that he had not been asked a direct question by the delegate.  When the Tribunal noted that it had not asked him a direct question in that respect, he explained this late claim by stating that he had not remembered the pamphlets at the time of the interview.  Relevant to one of the grounds that the Applicant raised, the Tribunal put to the Applicant that it might be difficult to remember clear details of events that occurred 15 to 20 years ago, but that it considered it reasonable that he would remember events from 2010 or 2011 that were important in the context of his protection claim (such as handing out Falun Gong pamphlets). 

11. The Tribunal recorded that the Applicant then said that he stopped handing out the pamphlets in recent years and then said that he did not actually hand pamphlets out to anyone, but only gave copies of the pamphlets to people who came and asked him if he had any.  He then acknowledged that he had not “handed out” pamphlets as he had suggested. 

12. The Tribunal recorded that when it asked the Applicant if he practised Falun Gong between 1999 and 2013, he said that he did not and that he did not have time to do so, as he had to work.  All he did was read the pamphlet.  He claimed that his written statement (in which he said he had continued to practise Falun Gong at home and that he had told his aunt he had practised it for about 10 years) was not correct, notwithstanding that he had earlier agreed that the statement in his protection visa application had been read back to him before he signed it.

13. The Tribunal also asked the Applicant about his knowledge of Falun Gong, including whether he had read the Zhuan Falun.  Initially he said he had read it, but when asked when he read it, he said he had not read it.  The Tribunal also recorded the Applicant’s response and lack of knowledge when asked to explain and describe the Falun Gong exercises.  The Tribunal asked him to confirm that he had not practised Falun Gong in China, which he confirmed.  It also recorded that he said that he was “not a genuine practitioner in China but he knew Falun Gong people and he believed in the philosophy”.

14. The Tribunal recorded the Applicant’s lack of knowledge when asked about Falun Gong philosophies and beliefs and his acknowledgment that “in China he did not know much about it”. 

15. The Tribunal also recorded that the Applicant told it that after he came to Australia he tried to contact the “Falun Gong society” to find out more, but could not find them.  The Tribunal put information about Falun Gong to the Applicant.  It raised with the Applicant doubts it had about the veracity of his claims to have practised in China and to be a genuine Falun Gong adherent and practitioner.  He acknowledged that he did not really know much about it before he came to Australia, and told the Tribunal that “while he has had the time to do it here, he has not felt like he has needed to do it here”.  

16. The Tribunal also recorded that the Applicant claimed he did not show his aunt how to practise Falun Gong, but suggested (for the first time) that he had given his aunt a disc as well as a pamphlet. 

17. The Tribunal put to the Applicant its concerns about his claim that he had left China in fear of his safety in circumstances where he had not “really practiced” Falun Gong since 1999 and had no contact with the police or authorities since that time and its concerns about claims that the police investigated his aunt and uncle and as to how they would know that he had anything to do with giving them a pamphlet. 

18. The Tribunal asked the Applicant to explain the photographs he had provided of himself holding a banner in public.  He said when he arrived in Sydney he tried to contact the Falun Gong community but could not find them and that he wanted to find them “so they could help him get a job”.  It recorded that he said he met them, but they could not help him get a job and “all they wanted to do was practice Falun Gong”.  It also recorded that when asked why he held the banner in public, the Applicant said “someone asked him to do it”.  He confirmed that the only reason he contacted Falun Gong in Australia was to get their assistance in finding a job.

19. The Tribunal asked the Applicant if he had done anything in Australia which could cause problems for him if he returned to China.  He said he held the banner.  He claimed that while he only did it one day, the authorities would arrest him if he went back.  When asked how the authorities would know he held the banner in Sydney, the Applicant said that he did not think they would arrest him because he held the banner, but they would arrest him because he “is a Falun Gong person”, on the basis that even if he did not “do it”, he was still a believer and if the police found out he gave his aunt the pamphlet they would arrest him.

20. The Tribunal put to the Applicant that the chances of the authorities linking him to the pamphlet he claimed they found in his aunt’s rubbish appeared to be remote, especially as more than 18 months had passed since they found it and, according to his evidence, nothing had yet happened to indicate they suspected him.  It also observed that on his evidence he had not practised Falun Gong since it was banned in China and had not practised it in Australia.  The Tribunal put to the Applicant that his evidence, which had been in part inconsistent over time, did not support his claims to have been a genuine adherent since 1996.

21. In its findings and reasons the Tribunal found that it had significant concerns about the reliability of the Applicant's evidence.  It did not find him to be a reliable or credible witness.  It gave detailed reasons for such findings, including the fact that his evidence about his practice of Falun Gong had changed over time.  The Tribunal set out the Applicant's original written claims (prepared with the assistance of a migration agent) which he had confirmed as correct, his changed evidence at the Tribunal hearing in relation to whether or not he had been a practitioner of Falun Gong in China after 1999 and his suggestion that his written statement was incorrect despite having confirmed it was correct and that it had been read back to him before he signed it.

22. It also addressed issues in relation to the Applicant’s evidence about handing out Falun Gong pamphlets more than 10 times between 1999 and 2013 with the last time being in 2010 or 2011.  The Tribunal had regard to the fact that when it had put to the Applicant that it would be reasonable to expect him to remember important details of events from the recent past, he then said he had stopped handing out pamphlets in recent years and then that he did not actually hand them out. 

23. The Tribunal also found that the Applicant's evidence about what materials he had given to his aunt and uncle (whether it was a booklet or a booklet and a disc) had changed over time and that when this was pointed out, he had said that he was not actually sure whether he had given his aunt a disc and a pamphlet or just the pamphlet and when asked to explain where he got the disc from and to describe it he had not provided a response or comment. 

24. The Tribunal considered the Applicant's explanations for these apparent inconsistencies and contradictions, including his claim, repeated today in submissions, that the events were a long time ago, that he had a bad memory, and also that he had only responded to direct and specific questions that his agent and the delegate had asked him.  The Tribunal expressed concern about the veracity of the Applicant’s evidence and responses and had regard to inconsistencies and adjustments in his evidence when inconsistencies were pointed out.  It found that his claim at the hearing that his protection visa statement (which he had initially said was correct) was in fact incorrect, was difficult to accept. 

25. The Tribunal was prepared to accept that the Applicant may not have perfect memory recall and may not be able to recall precise details of events that happened in the past and also that he may have been nervous in his interview and hearing.  However it did not accept that these responses provided a satisfactory explanation for the Applicant’s failure to mention before the hearing that he handed out pamphlets, or for his inconsistent evidence about what he did in that respect or in relation to what materials he gave his aunt and uncle.  It found that in the context of his claims these were significant matters and that it would be reasonable to expect that the Applicant would be able to give consistent evidence about these matters and information such as whether he practised Falun Gong between 1999 and 2013.  In addition, the Tribunal found that aspects of the Applicant's claims were difficult to reconcile with his evidence and that other aspects appeared implausible and difficult to believe (including the fact that his evidence indicated he had little knowledge and understanding of the principles and belief system of Falun Dafa or the exercises).  The Tribunal addressed the Applicant's evidence in light of his claim to have been a genuine Falun Gong practitioner since 1996.  It found that his scant level of knowledge was not consistent with being a person who had been involved with or practised Falun Gong for almost 20 years.  It also noted that the Applicant had changed his evidence about the nature and extent of his practice in China at the hearing and had eventually suggested he was not a genuine practitioner in China and had not practised between 1999 and 2013.

26. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's evidence in these matters further undermined his reliability as a witness.  It also considered it reasonable to expect that a person who had the long connection to a banned practice claimed in the protection visa application would have taken the opportunity to explore the practice and involve himself in a community of other practitioners as was available in Sydney, but that the Applicant had not done so.  It had regard to the fact that on his evidence he contacted the Falun Gong community so that they could assist him to find work, but all they wanted to do was practise Falun Gong which he did not have the time to do because he had to work.

27. The Tribunal also found that the Applicant's claims about police finding the handwritten pamphlet in rubbish outside his aunt’s house were difficult to understand and accept, including his claims about the frequency of police visits and the use of extensive police resources to investigate a pamphlet when the aunt and uncle had told the police that they did not know who put it in letterbox.  It also expressed concern as to why, if this had occurred, it would have taken the uncle and aunt more than six months to tell the Applicant about it and why he would decide to flee China when it would seem that the only way the police would ever know he gave his aunt the pamphlet was if his aunt or uncle told them (which after six months of questioning it was reasonable to consider was unlikely to occur) or why, in these circumstances, the Applicant and his uncle would leave his aunt by herself in China.

28. The Tribunal continued:

    45. Considered cumulatively the concerns the Tribunal holds about the applicant’s credibility on these matters lead it to find that he was not a reliable witness and that the account of events on which his protection claims are based is false.  As discussed above, critical aspects of his evidence were inconsistent and contradictory and the Tribunal considers that on more than one occasion he was willing to adjust and adapt his evidence to fill in perceived gaps in his claims and reconcile otherwise inconsistent statements.  Further, at times he was confused and uncertain in the answers he gave to questions which, if the events claimed had taken place, the Tribunal would have expected clearer answers, and, at other times, he was hesitant and appeared evasive in giving responses and often did not provide clear or direct answers, but gave vague and general responses.  His attempts to explain why he had not raised significant matters prior to the hearing, which included that he had only given his evidence in response to the specific question asked by his migration agent or the delegate, was contradicted by him volunteering information at the hearing, and further undermined his credibility as a witness.  In making these findings, the Tribunal has allowed for the possibility of discrepancies arising because of genuine lapses of memory, nervousness and the manner in which responses can differ depending on the nature and manner of which a question is asked.  It is also sensitive to the various cultural differences that can impact on an applicant’s responses to questioning, as discussed in the Tribunal’s ‘Guidance on the Assessment of Credibility’.  However, the Tribunal does not accept that any of these factors explain or excuse the concerns which, cumulatively, have led it to find that the applicant was not a reliable witness.  

    46. Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, in light of its findings that he was not a reliable witness, the Tribunal has no confidence in accepting that his evidence about the key aspects of his claims was based on his personal or actual experiences and considers it was fabricated to create a claim to be owed protection… 

29. The Tribunal did not accept that the Applicant had ever practised Falun Gong in China or in Australia, that he had any connection to or involvement with practitioners in China, that he possessed Falun Gong materials in China, that he had read the Zhuan Falun or pamphlets, or that he had handed out or given copies of pamphlets to others in China.  It did not accept that he was or ever had been a genuine or committed Falun Gong practitioner or that he genuinely “believes in it” as he claimed.  Therefore it did not accept he would or would wish to practise Falun Gong on return to China and hence found that there was not a real chance the Applicant would suffer serious harm on return for reasons of his claimed connection to or practice of Falun Gong.

30. On this basis the Tribunal did not accept the Applicant's claims about speaking to or giving pamphlets or other material to his aunt or uncle in China or the claims about the authorities’ investigation of his aunt and/or uncle. 

31. The Tribunal expressly considered the Applicant's photographs as follows:

    48. With regards to the photographs he submitted which show him holding a banner in Auburn containing information which appears to be critical of the Chinese government, the Tribunal notes that, at the hearing, the applicant said that he did not think he would be arrested or have any problems on return to China for having held that banner.  He did not claim to have engaged in any other anti-government or pro-Falun Gong activity in Australia.  He did not claim or suggest that the Chinese authorities were or would be aware that he held the banner on that day or that the photos had been published or otherwise brought to the attention of the Chinese authorities.  He said he held the banner that day because he was asked to, and did not provide any further comment about his reasons for having held it, nor did he express to the Department or Tribunal a political opinion about the Chinese government.  In light of its finding that he was an unreliable witness and his statement that he only contacted the Falun Gong community in Sydney to get their help in finding work and his lack of clear evidence indicating that he has a particular political view or conviction, the Tribunal is not prepared to accept that he holds political views contrary to the Chinese government or that he has engaged in any political activity in Australia beyond holding a banner on one day in Auburn.  On the evidence before it, the Tribunal considers the chance of the Chinese authorities being or becoming aware that he held that banner in Auburn, including by being or becoming aware of the photographs of him holding the banner, to be remote and far-fetched, and, in the circumstances, on the evidence and information before it, the Tribunal considers the chance of the Chinese authorities imputing to him, because of that conduct or photographs, an adverse political opinion or a pro-Falun Gong profile as a practitioner, or subjecting him to serious harm for those reasons, to be remote and far-fetched.  Accordingly, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept there is a real chance he would suffer serious harm on return to China because he held a banner with information critical of the Chinese government in Auburn on one occasion or because of the photographs of him holding the banner, or for any related reason. 

1. The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not meet the Refugee’s Convention criterion. 

2. It considered the complementary protection criterion.  In essence, for the same reasons it had found that the Applicant was not a genuine or committed adherent or practitioner of Falun Gong, that he never practised Falun Gong in China or had any connection to or involvement with Falun Gong practitioners in China (including handing out pamphlets) and that he would not wish to practise Falun Gong on return, the Tribunal considered that he did not meet the complementary protection criterion and that there were no grounds for believing there was a real risk he would suffer significant harm on that basis as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being returned to China.

3. In light of its finding that the Applicant did not give Falun Gong materials to his aunt and uncle in China or to any other person, the Tribunal also considered there were no grounds for believing that there was a real risk of significant harm on return to China for that reason. 

4. The Tribunal considered the fact that on one occasion the Applicant held a banner in Auburn containing information critical of the Chinese government.  In light of its earlier reasons and the finding that the chance of the Chinese authorities becoming aware of that conduct, including through becoming aware of the photographs, was remote, the Tribunal found that there were no substantial grounds for believing there was a real risk the Applicant would suffer significant harm because he held a banner on one day or because of the photographs of him doing so or for any related reason.

5. The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not meet the complementary protection criterion and affirmed the decision to refuse the application. 

6. The Applicant sought review by application filed on 11 December 2014.  There is one ground in the application which is repeated, in part, in the supporting affidavit. 

7. The first part of the ground is a contention that the Tribunal failed to give sufficient consideration to the Applicant's participation in what he described as “public Falun Gong exhibitions in Australia” which he believed may attract attention from the Chinese government.  He claimed “the Tribunal considered the change of the Chinese authorities imputing to me an adverse political opinion or a pro-Falun Gong profile as a practitioner, or subjecting him to serious harm for those reasons, to be remote and far-fetched”.

8. The ground in the application continues:

   In the last few weeks my home in China has been visited by the local police frequently and my wife was questioned by police about my connection with Falun Gong organisations overseas.  I have reason to believe that my involvement with Falun Gong activities in Australia has attracted attention from the Chinese authorities. 

9. First, insofar as the Applicant contends that the Tribunal in some way failed to consider or failed to “sufficiently” consider his claims about his activities in Australia, such claim is not made out.

10. It is clear from the detailed account in the Tribunal reasons for decision that the Tribunal understood that the Applicant had given the delegate three photographs of himself holding a banner in Auburn.  It acknowledged the existence of the photographs and considered not only the photographs but also any underlying claims in that respect.  It is apparent from the only evidence of the Tribunal hearing (in the reasons for decision) that at the hearing the Tribunal asked the Applicant not only about these matters, but also about any involvement with the Falun Gong community in Australia and that he indicated that he had initially not found them, but then eventually did so because he wanted their assistance finding a job and that that was the only reason.  He claimed that they were not able to assist him and all they wanted to do was practise Falun Gong.

11. The Tribunal also recorded and considered the Applicant’s concession at the hearing that he did not think he would be arrested because he held the banner, but claimed to fear that he would be arrested because he was a Falun Gong person, because he was a believer, and if the police found out he gave his aunt the pamphlet. 

12. In other words, as the Applicant's claims eventually emerged at the Tribunal hearing, he resiled from any claim to fear persecution on the basis of activities in Australia (contrary to the suggestion in his application).  Notwithstanding this, in its findings and reasons the Tribunal considered not only the Applicant's evidence at the hearing but also any risk of harm as a result of the Applicant holding a banner, the photographs, and any related reason.  It considered whether the Applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or met the complementary protection criterion on any of these bases.

13. The Tribunal found that the chance of Chinese authorities being or becoming aware that the Applicant held the banner, including by being or becoming aware of the photographs, was remote and far-fetched.  It was of the view that on the evidence before it in the absence of any claims by the Applicant or anything that would give rise to a political opinion about the Chinese government, the chance of the authorities imputing to him an adverse political opinion or a pro-Falun Gong profile as a practitioner or subjecting him to serious harm because of the holding of the banner or the photographs was remote and far-fetched.

14. Such findings were reasonably open to the Tribunal on the evidence before it for the reasons which it gave.  Clearly it considered the Applicant's claims on the evidence before it at the time of its decision in relation to his activities in Australia in the context of both the Refugee’s Convention and the complementary protection criterion.

15. Insofar as the Applicant's concerns in this respect disagree with the Tribunal’s conclusions he seeks impermissible merits review. 

16. The second aspect of the ground in the application seems to assert that the Applicant is at risk because of his claimed participation in public Falun Gong activities in Australia on the basis of recent visits to his home and questioning of his wife about his connection with Falun Gong organisations overseas.  However there is no evidence and nothing to suggest that these were claims that were made to the Tribunal, either at the hearing or at any other time prior to the Tribunal decision.  Insofar as the Applicant now seeks to raise fresh claims about events which he appears to be claiming occurred after the Tribunal decision, such claims are not indicative of jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.

17. The Tribunal’s findings that the chance of the authorities subjecting the Applicant to serious or significant harm based on any of his activities in Australia was remote and far-fetched were reasonably open to the Tribunal on the material before it for the reasons which it gave.  No jurisdictional error is established on the basis contended for in the application. 

18. Despite not having filed written submissions, in oral submissions the Applicant claimed that the Tribunal had “rushed to make a decision” as to whether “he was or was not”.  Presumably he meant whether he was or was not a Falun Gong practitioner or believer.

19. There is nothing in the material before the court to support any claim that the Tribunal “rushed” in any way.  The review application was filed on 20 March 2014.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted on 18 September 2014.  The Tribunal did not rush to make its decision thereafter.  It was made on 7 November 2014.  It is apparent from the Tribunal’s reasons (which I have set out in some detail) that the Tribunal gave careful and thorough consideration to all aspects of the Applicant's claims.  The Applicant's contentions in this respect are not indicative of jurisdictional error. 

20. The Applicant also claimed that the Tribunal subjected him to some kind of discrimination.  He appeared to take issue with the basis on which the Tribunal had made a decision as to whether or not he had Falun Gong beliefs.  He questioned the basis on which the Tribunal could make such findings, given that events he described had taken place a long time earlier.  He acknowledged in that context that he had not been able to remember things clearly.  He seemed to suggest that the Tribunal had in some way suggested that a seamless account was necessary, notwithstanding the time that had passed.

21. However, as set out above, there is nothing in the Tribunal’s reasons for decision or otherwise in the material before the court to support any claim of either actual or apprehended bias (see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 205 CLR 507; [2001] HCA 17 per Gleeson CJ and Gummow J at [69] and [72] and Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H (2001) 179 ALR 425; [2001] HCA 28 per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow at [28]) (insofar as this was intended or may be seen as being raised by the concerns that the Applicant expressed). On the contrary. The Tribunal clearly gave careful and thorough consideration to the Applicant's claims. It gave him every opportunity to explain inconsistencies and address concerns it had about his evidence. It considered those explanations in its reasons for decision. It understood, in particular, the Applicant's claims about memory loss and the time that had passed since some of the events in question. As indicated, it specifically considered those explanations including in relation to his claims about handing out pamphlets, but found that his claims included relatively recent significant events. The Tribunal did not simply reject the Applicant's claims because of shortcomings in his memory in relation to past events. Rather, as set out above, it had regard to his inconsistent contradictory evidence; his willingness to adjust and adapt his evidence; confusion, uncertainty, evasion, vagueness, and generality in the evidence; and his failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for first raising significant matters at the hearing.

22. The manner in which the Tribunal proceeded is not indicative of discrimination such as to establish jurisdictional error (whether seen in terms of actual or apprehended bias, logic or reasonableness).  Nor is the Tribunal’s approach otherwise indicative of jurisdictional error. 

23. Finally, in submissions in reply the Applicant read a written statement claiming that he had abided by the law in Australia, that he was a taxpayer and that he had made a contribution to the construction industry.  As I endeavoured to explain to him, these issues are not matters that can be taken into account by the court in considering whether or not the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error. 

24. As no jurisdictional error has been established the application must be dismissed. 

I certify that the preceding fifty-five (55) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Barnes

Date: 25 August 2016