Thapa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
[2021] FCCA 1017
•14 May 2021
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Thapa v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1017
File number(s): SYG 469 of 2020 Judgment of: JUDGE HUMPHREYS Date of judgment: 14 May 2021 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa – whether the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error in failing to consider the applicant’s claims – whether the decision of the Tribunal was infected by bias or legal unreasonableness – no jurisdictional error is made out – the application is dismissed. Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 116(1)(b), 119, 120, 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cl 8202.
Cases cited: Appellant S359/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 216 CLR 473
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 197 ALR 398
Jatin v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 150
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) HCA 18
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI (2009) 83 ALR 1123
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30
NADH of 2001 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 328
SCAA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668
SZOAF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 431
SZRHL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Anor [2013] FCA 1093
SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship [3013] FCAFC 80
Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437
Refugee Review Tribunal: Ex parte H (2001) 75 ALJR 982
Number of paragraphs: 95 Date of last submission/s: 7 May 2021 Date of hearing: 7 May 2021 Place: Parramatta Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr Bhatta Solicitor for the Respondents: Ms Stone ORDERS
SYG 469 of 2020 BETWEEN: MR BHARAT THAPA
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE HUMPHREYS
DATE OF ORDER:
14 MAY 2021
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application is dismissed.
2.The applicant to pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the amount of $7,200.00.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE HUMPHREYS
INTRODUCTION
The applicant is a citizen of Nepal. The applicant was granted a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) (Subclass 500) visa on 8 February 2017. On 20 November 2019, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration (“delegate”) cancelled the applicant’s visa on the basis that he had not maintained enrolment in a registered course of study for which the visa was granted and had not complied with a condition of the visa, being, cl 8202(2) of Schedule 8 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (“the Regulations”).
The applicant sought merits review at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). In a decision dated 7 February 2020, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant’s student visa.
The applicant now seeks judicial review of the Tribunal’s Decision.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DECISION
After setting out the background of the matter, the Tribunal set out the relevant provisions of cl 8202 of the Regulations, at paragraph 7, being the applicant must:
•be enrolled in a full time registered course: 8202(a);
•maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework that is at the same level as, or a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the Visa was granted: 8202(2)(b);
•has not been certified by his or her education provider, is not achieving satisfactory course progress as specified: 8202(2)(c);
•has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance as specified: 8202(2)(c),
At paragraphs 8 to 9 of the Tribunal’s decision, in the case of the applicant, the Tribunal noted that his visa was cancelled on the basis that the applicant was not enrolled in a full-time registered course at the same qualifications level, for the period of 8 August 2017 to the cancellation of the visa on 20 November 2019.
At paragraphs 11 and 12 of its decision, the Tribunal set out the evidence that was filed with the Department prior to the hearing on 5 November 2019, and subsequent to the day of the hearing on 21 January 2020. This included Confirmations of Enrolment (“COE”) at the Sydney Metro College and the Wentworth Institute together with, inter-alia, a submission from the applicant’s migration agent and extracts from the applicant’s bank accounts.
At paragraph 14 of the Tribunal’s decision, it was noted that at the time the visa was granted, it was on the basis that the applicant was to be enrolled in a suite of courses, including a Bachelor of Engineering (Honours) which is a course at level 8 of the Australian Qualification Framework (“AQF”). The Tribunal noted that a student issued with a student visa is expected to know and be aware of his visa conditions and comply with those conditions. Ignorance of visa conditions is no excuse to a breach of the visa.
At paragraph 16 of its decision, the Tribunal noted the applicant’s evidence regarding the medical condition of his grandmother. Evidence indicated that applicant’s grandmother was admitted to hospital on 22 September 2017 and discharged from hospital on 1 October 2017, after which she recovered. The Tribunal noted that there was no medical evidence submitted that the applicant became so distressed about his grandmother’s condition that he could not study or had to defer his studies.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant sat exams for his first semester in his Diploma of Engineering course in or around June 2017 and failed 3 subjects. The applicant scored a zero in one subject, which the Tribunal found was indicative of a student not applying himself to his studies during the course at all. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant’s academic results were as a result of his concern for his grandmother’s condition at the time. The applicant’s grandmother’s condition did not become severe until August 2017 and when she was hospitalised in September 2017, the applicant was no longer enrolled in that course.
At paragraph 18 of its decision, the Tribunal noted that the applicant claimed that he was enrolled in study in second semester starting July 2017 and that he had paid $800 towards second semester fees. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant’s enrolment was cancelled for non-payment of fees. The applicant’s cancellation in the Diploma of Engineering course also resulted in the applicant’s enrolment in the Bachelor of Engineering (Honours) course being cancelled.
The Tribunal noted, at paragraph 20 of its decision, that the applicant then enrolled in a Diploma of Information Technology course at Strathfield College. The applicant’s COE was created on 10 August 2017. This course was at level 5 of the AQF. The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s studies at this course were also unsuccessful. The applicant gave evidence that he passed 4 to 5 units but failed some units. The applicant claimed that, while studying, he became involved with a group of students at the college who were gamblers and encouraged him to gamble. The applicant gave evidence that he became heavily involved in gambling on poker machines which detrimentally impacted on his studies. The applicant claims that he had a gambling addiction which took over his life. The applicant lied to his parents about his addiction and studies.
The applicant gave evidence, set out at paragraph 22 of the Tribunal’s decision, that he decided to break his addiction, and enrolled in a Diploma of Accounting course at Sydney Metro College. The COE for this course was created on 18 October 2018. The course was at level 5 of the AQF. The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s studies at this course were unsuccessful. The applicant claims that his enrolment at the college was cancelled due to low attendance. The Decision Record confirms that the cancellation of the applicant’s enrolment occurred on 29 September 2019. The applicant claims that his attendance at classes was poor because he developed an addiction to playing a computer game, which resulted in him spending money on gaming credits and playing games at night, rather than attending class.
The applicant received a Notification of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) of his visa on 14 October 2019. On 30 October 2019, the applicant enrolled in a Diploma of Information Technology course at Wentworth Institute. This course was at level 5 of the AQF. On 31 October 2019, the applicant enrolled in a Bachelor of Interactive Media at Wentworth Institute. This course was at level 7 of the AQF.
At paragraph 32 of its decision, the Tribunal noted that, as of the date of the hearing, the applicant was not enrolled in a course at level 8 of the AQF or higher, and, if he continued to study in the course he was enrolled in, being the Diploma of Information Technology and Bachelor of Interactive Media, the outcome would be that the applicant would remain in breach of his visa, even if the cancellation of his visa was set aside, as he was enrolled in a course that was not at the same or higher level than a level 8 course for which the visa had been granted. Accordingly, at paragraph 37 of its decision, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had not complied with condition 8202(2) of his visa and that his visa was liable to cancellation under s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
From paragraph 38 onwards of its decision, the Tribunal considered whether or not the applicant’s visa should be cancelled by reference to the matters raised by the applicant and the matters in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (“PAM3”), General Visa Cancellation Powers.
In terms of the purpose of the visa holder’s travel and stay in Australia and whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel or remain in Australia, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant came to Australia for the purpose of study. The applicant had been unsuccessful in that he had enrolled but not completed 3 courses and his academic results were indicative of a student who had not applied himself and did not intend to generally study. The Tribunal noted, at paragraph 43 of its decision, that the reasons given for the applicant’s failed studies were as a result of his own addictions and a failure to apply himself, and reveal an intention not to generally study here in Australia. The Tribunal noted that the applicant claimed that he intended to continue studying in Australia in the future. However, the Tribunal noted, at paragraph 47 of its decision, that the applicant had not studied at an appropriate level for a very long period of time of more than 27 months. The Tribunal gave these matters marginal weight towards the visa being cancelled.
At paragraphs 48 through to 58 of its decision, the Tribunal considered the extent of compliance with the visa conditions. The Tribunal accepted that there was a non-compliance with condition 8202(2) of the applicant’s visa for long period of time and that the Tribunal would need to accept that the applicant was not responsible for the reasons for his non re-enrolment to find the matter in his favour. The Tribunal found, at paragraph 52 of its decision, that it was the applicant’s responsibility to maintain enrolment at a satisfactory level to meet his visa conditions. If the applicant could not maintain enrolment at a level consistent with his visa conditions, it was open for him to apply to the Department for a new visa. At paragraph 53 of its decision, the Tribunal noted that the applicant, in evidence, confirmed that he knew that he was in breach of his visa. At paragraph 57 of its decision, the Tribunal found that the reasons for not being enrolled in the course at the appropriate level of the AQF was the responsibility of the applicant. Given that the applicant could have applied for new visa and that the applicant acknowledged that he was responsible for not being enrolled in the appropriate course level, the Tribunal gave these matters substantial weight towards the visa being cancelled.
At paragraph 59 of its decision, the Tribunal considered the degree of hardship that may be caused to the applicant, including financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship. The Tribunal noted, at paragraph 60 of its decision that the applicant stated that, if his visa were cancelled, it would be a blow to his family who have funded his education and for him not to have achieved any qualifications. The applicant stated that it would be a waste of his 3 years in Australia and would be difficult to return and gain employment. The applicant further stated that he would lose the trust of his family and that he would need to return home and explore his options to see if he could undertake study in Nepal.
At paragraph 61 onwards of its decision, the Tribunal accepted that there would be some financial hardship to the applicant and his family, however, there was nothing preventing the applicant from studying in Nepal. The Tribunal concluded, however, that these were not matters that would, on their own, constitute an overwhelming degree of hardship sufficient to sway against the cancelling of the applicant’s visa.
At paragraph 65 onwards of its decision, the Tribunal considered the circumstances in which the ground of cancellation arose. The Tribunal noted that the applicant was not enrolled in the appropriate course for over 27 months. The Tribunal did not accept that the circumstances that gave rise to this were beyond the applicant’s control or that he had provided a reasonable explanation for not being enrolled with the appropriate level course for such a long period of time. The Tribunal gave this matter substantial weight towards the visa being cancelled.
At paragraph 71 of its decision, the Tribunal noted that there was nothing in the applicant’s past and present behaviour towards the Department that would give rise to a finding in favour of the visa being cancelled. At paragraph 72 of its decision, the Tribunal noted that there would be no consequential cancellation of any other person’s visa under s 140 of the Act, should the applicant’s visa be cancelled.
At paragraph 73 onwards of its decision, the Tribunal noted the consequences to the applicant of having to depart Australia and that this would give rise to limited options to apply for further visas in Australia and that he would need to apply from overseas for most types of further visas. It was likely that any application for an additional visa would not be approved for the next 3 years if the applicant departed Australia. The Tribunal gave this factor marginal weight towards the visa not being cancelled.
At paragraph 78 of its decision, the Tribunal noted there were no issues in relation to any international obligations including non-refoulement or the best interests of children. Further, as it was not a permanent visa, the applicant could not show that he had strong family, business or other ties in Australia
At paragraph 80 and onwards of its decision, the Tribunal considered any other relevant matters. The Tribunal noted that the applicant was currently enrolled in courses which were below the 8 AQF course level that the applicant was originally enrolled in. There was no supporting evidence by way of a letter of offer or other evidence that the applicant had applied to a university for a graduate diploma course in the future and the applicant would be unable to obtain the necessary enrolment to be compliant with the visa conditions for a number of months.
At paragraph 86 of its decision, considering the whole of the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the visa should be cancelled.
GROUNDS OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
The grounds of judicial review relied upon by the applicant are set out in an Amended Initiating Application filed with the Court on 4 November 2020. They are as follows:
Ground one
The Second Respondent made a jurisdictional error by failing to take into account relevant considerations.
Particulars
•(a) The Second Respondent failed to consider at the time of hearing, the Applicant was generally continuously enrolled in a registered course.
•(b) The Second Respondent did not consider that the individuals may choose different areas of study on the basis of a change of decision as to career.
•(c) The Second Respondent did not consider that applicant’s grandmother’s medical condition affected his study.
•(d) The Second Respondent did not consider that applicant could not enrolled in higher AQF level course as his parents could not support him financially while they were doing medical treatment of applicant’s grandmother.
•(e) The Second Respondent did not consider the degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional hardship). Applicant would have to go back without getting a degree despite of paying higher tuition fees.
•(f) The Second Respondent did not consider that the circumstances were beyond the applicant’s control. The applicant was gambling heavily on poker machines, which detrimentally impacted upon the applicant’s study. They were beyond the applicant’s control.
Ground two
The Second Respondent made a jurisdictional error by constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction; by being legally unreasonable; and by having misconstrued and misinterpreted the statutory requirement of the act.
Particulars
(a) The Second Respondent failed to consider that the condition 8202(2)(b) requires the Applicant to complete the same level of qualification, in this case a Bachelor level, rather than the same Australian Qualification Framework (AQF) level and that the Applicant did not have to maintain the same AQF level.
(b) The Registered Migration Agent has submitted to the Second Respondent that there is no grounds for the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa as the Applicant was enrolled in the Bachelor degree and has attached evidence of enrolment. The Second Respondent failed to consider that the Applicant currently held a Bachelor level Confirmation of Enrolment (COE) at the time of hearing and decision.
(c) The Second Respondent has failed to consider the Direction No 61 given by the Minister under Section 499 of the Migration Act 1958.
(d) The Tribunal did not make sufficient enquiries as to the purpose of travel, extent of compliance, consequences of cancellation, international obligations and asked only limited closed questions.
(e) The Tribunal acted under dictation and applied inflexible policy if the factors are not a matter the Tribunal has to consideration.
Ground three
The Second Respondent made a jurisdictional error by being unreasonable and showing bias.
Particulars
(a) The Tribunal ([32] & [80]) and (T p 20 at 8 & p21 at 29)) suggests that the Applicant will remain in breach of visa condition and for that the setting aside of cancellation has little utility.
(b) The Applicant provided documents to the Tribunal before the hearing (T p2 at 15 to p3 at 36). The Tribunal conducted the hearing without even actually receiving them on file, reviewing and considering the documents provided by the Applicant (T p2 at 15 to p3 at 36).
(c) The Second Respondent failed to consider that the applicant had an extensive “Gambling” problem even with the evidence of hundreds or thousands of Australian Dollar withdrawn and/or spent on Poker and betting.
(d) The Second Respondent made a decision on 9.20 am just before the hearing at 9.30 am on the day of the hearing in a different matter but with similar facts and circumstances.
(e) The Tribunal failed to give the Applicant notice under Section 120 of the Migration Act as to the Applicant not holding a same level COE.
(f) During the hearing, the Tribunal raises questions/comments as to ‘how can I be assured’, ‘I have no confidence’, “you are not giving me a confidence’, ‘This isn’t a second chance its fourth’. The Tribunal’s questions, comments and statement are unexpected of the merit review tribunal:
•(T p15 at 17) – Pleading … taken advantage of their trust.
•(T p17 at 1) - they’re never going to get that back … wasted three years in your education and their finance.
•(T p17 at 17) – your records you haven’t done it for last three years
•(T p17 at 26) – I am not assured ... I have no confidence …
•(T p17 at 39) – You’re not giving me a lot of confidence
•(T p17 at 45) – this isn’t a second chance …
•(T p18 at 15) – Consequence …
•(T p21 at 5) – I make this illustration …
•(T p21 at 29) – … three diplomas … serious concern …
•(T p22 at 25) – a bit too old …
•(T p25 at 30) – extreme reservations …
•(T p26 at 14) – I must admit I came …
•(T p27 at 1) – But, I have serious concerns …
Ground four
The Second Respondent made a jurisdictional error by disregarding substantive submissions of material importance and acting contrary to the information as required of the position of an independent review authority.
Particulars
(a) The Tribunal suggested at [80] to [84] that the Applicant will not be compliant with the visa condition and is unable to provide any supporting evidence for it. The evidence at the hearing (T p24 at 44 to p27 at 21) indicate the Applicant’s representative has submitted otherwise and the Tribunal has accepted it as to the same.
(b) The Tribunal (T p10 at 26) suggested that gambling arose due to circumstances that were under the Applicant’s control and that the Applicant is responsible for it (T p10 at 31). This was further stressed as being his fault (T p12 at 26) in relation to gambling addiction. The Tribunal [70] suggested that it does not accept those circumstances were beyond the Applicant’s control or circumstances that provided reasonable explanation for the breach.
(c) The Tribunal suggest (T p22 at 35) the Applicant is a responsible adult and not under 18 children and thus the Tribunal has serious reservations as using that as an excuse as to the gambling addiction (T p22 at 43).
(d) The Applicant and his representative clearly indicated over the hearing that the Applicant had gambling issue ((T p12 at 11) (T p23 at 5)).
THE APPLICANT’S SUBMISSIONS
It should be noted that the applicant’s written submissions were not well written and contained significant expression and grammatical errors. They have been set out below as close as possible to those submitted to ensure the submissions are properly recorded.
In relation to ground one, it was submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the hardship that the Tribunal’s decision would have upon the applicant, including financial, psychological and emotional hardship. It was further submitted that the Tribunal did not consider circumstances beyond the applicant control as to his gambling addiction, despite it being a substantive submission by the applicant’s representative both orally and in writing.
In relation to ground two, the applicant submits that the construction, interpretation and application of condition 8202(2)(b) of the Regulations is flawed. It is submitted that the correct construction and application of the condition is that, all that the applicant is required to maintain, is the same level of qualification, in this case a Bachelor’s degree, rather than the AQF level. Different courses of study programs may have different AQF levels, such that the rule should require the applicant to maintain a qualification/degree level. This interpretation is also true due to the fact that even a vocational, VET course, or a graduate diploma, has an AQF level of 8, while a Bachelor’s degree has an AQF level of 7. It was submitted that the legislation as drafted has a different, more complex wording in terms of AQF levels for a clear reason that it is intended for a student to be enrolled in the same or level of qualification. It was put to the Tribunal that the applicant held a Bachelor level COE, and so, the applicant was not in breach of the visa condition.
It was further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider Direction No 61. At the same time, the Tribunal failed to give proper consideration and weight to different aspects of the applicant’s case. It was submitted that “the Tribunal seems to be just trying to satisfy the requirement of undertaking the hearing or considering the factors rather than having a proper hearing and considering the fact and circumstances in making the correct decision”. It was further submitted that the Tribunal acted on dictation and applied, inflexibly, policy in that the Tribunal asked closed questions as if it had already determined as to different factors and did not give significant weight as was required to matters in favour of the applicant.
Ground three alleges that the Tribunal was unreasonable in its consideration and showed bias. It was submitted that the approach the Tribunal took as to the applicant remaining in breach of the visa condition in the event that the Tribunal set aside the cancellation was wrong, as there would not be a discretion applicable in the matter if there is no such course of action envisioned. This is evidenced by the Tribunal’s approach that the decision not to cancel of visa will make the applicant in breach of the visa, and so, setting aside has little utility. It was submitted that this approach is flawed due to the application of s 119(b)(ii) of the Act.
The Tribunal considered as a discretionary consideration, the potential breach by the applicant of not maintaining an AQF level 8 enrolment. The breach or, potential breach, cannot be a discretionary consideration for the matter of not cancelling the visa due to the breach itself.
The applicant further submitted that the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing without receiving or reviewing the documents and the written submissions provided by the applicant’s representative, nor is there any evidence that it has received the same during the hearing.
It is further submitted by the applicant that the Tribunal did not make an independent intellectual assessment without influence. The Tribunal made a decision at 9:20 AM on the day it was having a hearing for a separate matter at 9:30 AM. The applicant submits that the hearing the Tribunal was prepared to conduct was nearly identical in nature and fact. Both applications had similar facts and background. Both applicants were from Nepal, both had downgraded enrolments, both did not hold COE from the same level, both applicants had not made adequate progression in their studies and both had multiple COEs cancelled.
The applicant submitted that, although the Tribunal may not have been influenced by the other matter, any reasonable individual would believe that there was a perceived apprehension of bias or subconscious bias that influenced the decision of the Tribunal in both matters. It was submitted that the Tribunal saw a similar matter which had similar facts. This may have influenced the Tribunal to believe that there is a trend in wider application which it believes is not correct and hence its decision was further influenced (sic).
It was submitted the Tribunal was required, under s 120 of the Act, to give certain information that would be the reason, or part of its reason, for affirming the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal believed that not holding the same AQF level COE could be the reason or part of the reason for affirmation the decision of the delegate. The Tribunal failed to give such notice to the applicant as required under s 120 or s 359A of the Act.
It was further submitted that the Tribunal’s approach as to conduct of the hearing, asking questions and dealing with the matter, including undertaking a review of a matter without documents being received, is not something expected of a fair and open minded Tribunal making unbiased decisions. It was submitted that the Tribunal engaged in errant fact-finding and so failed in its core function of review, leading it to be unreasonable: see SZRHL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Anor [2013] FCA 1093 at [25].
It was submitted the Tribunal had a closed view on many things the applicant and/or his representative presented. In doing so, the Tribunal’s mind was not open to persuasion: see SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship [3013] FCAFC 80 at [29]. The applicant submits that a fair-minded and reasonably well-informed lay observer, aware of the content of the Tribunal hearing, the manner in which it was conducted, and the ultimate findings made by the Tribunal, might reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal might approach the evidence of the applicant in a way that was not impartial or with a closed mind: see Refugee Review Tribunal: Ex parte H (2001) 75 ALJR 982 at [27].
It was submitted that an initial disbelief of the applicant and the thought processes, including having the hearing immediately preceding another matter with a similar factual basis, erroneously damaged the applicant’s credibility and otherwise tainted all other evidence leading to the need to have the matter examined in a new light. The applicant submits that the Court should consider that the factual task undertaken by the Tribunal, including credibility, to determine whether the decision of the Tribunal was tainted by either irrationality, biased or both: see NADH of 2001 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 328 at [116]. The Tribunal has asserted such conclusions which can be seen as not just engaged in a reasoning process, but to assert that the conclusions is no more than an intuitive and so is arbitrary or capricious response to its task (sic).
In relation to ground four, it was submitted that the Tribunal accepted the AQF submission at the hearing. Further, the Tribunal completely ignored or did not take into account the fact that the applicant had a gambling issue. The Tribunal was of the view that the applicant was a responsible adult, and so, in the Tribunal’s view, it was the applicant’s fault and the Tribunal had serious reservations as to his excuse.
It was submitted that the gambling issues arose due to circumstances that were not under the applicant’s control and that he was not responsible. It was submitted that there is evidence that gambling, as with many other addictions, is not the fault of the individual. The applicant submitted that it should be clear in society that addiction was part of a wider, problem and cannot be attributed to the individual, rather, it is society that does not support the individual in such situations. The Court was invited to take further evidence and witnesses in this regard.
THE FIRST RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS
Ground one contends that the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations. However this fails to grapple with the critical issue that was before the Tribunal, being that the applicant was not enrolled in a course of the appropriate level, in breach of condition 8202(2)(b) of his visa. The applicant also fails to grapple with the critical issue that he remained enrolled in courses at levels below the appropriate level, such that there would be no utility in remitting the matter to the Department in circumstances where he would remain in breach of his visa conditions. The contentions cannot be sustained in the light of the Tribunal’s express consideration of each of these matters. At its highest, this ground should be viewed as a contention that the Tribunal should have come to a different conclusion about the applicant’s claims and rises no higher than a request for impermissible merits review by the Court.
In relation to particular (a), the Tribunal expressly acknowledged that the applicant had generally been continuously enrolled in courses since his arrival in Australia. However, the Tribunal correctly found, which the applicant also conceded, that he had not been enrolled in a course at level 8 of the AQF or higher than the registered course in relation to which his visa was granted: see condition 8202(2)(b) of the Regulations.
Particular (b) contends that the Tribunal did not consider that the applicant’s academic history shows different areas of study on the basis of a career change. The applicant’s Bachelor of Engineering (Honours) and Diploma of Engineering courses were cancelled on the basis of non-payment of fees (see paragraphs 18 to 19 of the Tribunal’s decision). The Decision Record reveals that the applicant gave evidence that he enrolled in the Diploma of Information Technology to make it easier to pass his courses (see paragraph 20 of the Tribunal’s decision). The applicant’s evidence before the Tribunal was not that he changed courses due to a change in career. The Tribunal cannot have failed to consider a claim that was not advance before it.
Particulars (c) and (d) contend that the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant’s claims in respect of his grandmother’s health and his family’s capacity to assist with his course fees. The complaint fails on the facts as the Tribunal expressly considered those claims at paragraphs 16 to 18, 30, and 50 to 51 of its decision. However, the Tribunal found the applicant’s claims unconvincing. These particulars rise no higher than an expression of disagreement with the Tribunal’s findings.
Particular (d) also asserts that the Tribunal did not consider the degree of hardship that would be caused to the applicant. The Tribunal expressly acknowledged that the cancellation of the applicant’s visa would result in him returning to Nepal without having completed the course and that the fees he had payed would be wasted. The Tribunal gave marginal weight towards this fact in relation to the cancellation of the visa at paragraph 64 of its decision.
The complaint at particular (f) that the Tribunal failed to consider that the applicant’s gambling was “beyond his control” cannot be made out. First, the applicant conceded that his gambling arose due to circumstances under his control and that he was responsible for his gambling: see Transcript 10, lines 26-33:
It is for the Court to consider the Tribunal’s decision: in the light of the basis upon which the application [to the Tribunal] was made, not upon an entirely different basis which may occur to applicant, or applicant’s lawyers, at some later stage in the process: see Appellant S359/2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 216 CLR 473 at [479].
Ground two makes several contentions including that the Tribunal constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction, that it was legally unreasonable and that it misconstrued and misinterpreted the requirements of the Act.
Particular (a) asserts the Tribunal failed to consider that condition 8202(2)(b) of the Regulations requires an applicant to complete the same level of qualification rather than the same AQF. The first respondent submits that this is a misunderstanding of the relevant law. The wording of condition 8202(2)(b) of the Regulations is clear and requires that the applicant must maintain involvement in a registered course that will provide, upon completion, qualifications at the same, or higher level AQF for which the visa was granted.
Particular (b) contends that the Tribunal failed to consider that the applicant held a COE in a Bachelor course at the time of the decision. The Tribunal plainly had regard to the applicant’s evidence received on the day of the hearing, namely that he held a COE for a Bachelor of Interactive Media commencing on 16 November 2020 with a completion date of 11 November 2022. However it found that this course was AQF level 7 and not the required AQF level 8 as required by condition 8202(2)(b) of the Regulations.
Particular (c) asserts that the Tribunal failed to consider Direction No 61. Direction No 61 is a guideline and sets out examples of exceptional circumstances beyond a visa applicant’s control which includes issues with an education provider, political upheaval or natural disaster in the applicant’s home country. The first respondent submits that gambling simply does not fall within the above circumstances anticipated for the purpose of Direction No 61. Notwithstanding this, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s explanation as to why he was not enrolled in a registered course at a level appropriate for the visa. The Tribunal considered whether the circumstances were beyond the applicant’s control and was not satisfied, at paragraphs 69 to 70 of its decision, that they were. The assertion is no more than a request for the Court to engage in impermissible merits review.
Particular (d) asserts that the Tribunal did not make sufficient inquiries as to the “purpose of travel, extent of compliance, consequence of cancellation, internal obligations” and that it asked only “limited” questions”. Contrary to this assertion, the Tribunal’s Decision Record and the transcript reveals that it consider these issues at length in line with the Department’s PAM 3. Further, and in any event, there is no obligation imposed upon the Tribunal to investigate or any general duty to enquire: see Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI (2009) 83 ALR 1123 at [1] and [18].
Particular (e) asserts that the Tribunal acted “under dictation and applied inflexible policy” of the factors the Tribunal was not required to consider. This particular is unclear and failed to identify what “policy” or “factors” the Tribunal was not required to consider. In any event, the Tribunal extensively considered that the grounds for cancellation arose and made findings that were open to it. Having found that the applicant was in breach of his visa conditions, it carefully considered the applicant’s circumstances with regard to the policy set out in PAM 3. These were matters that the Tribunal was entitled to consider as to whether a breach of the applicant’s visa conditions had arisen. It was open for the Tribunal to find, and for the reasons it gave, on the balance of the evidence that the visa should be cancelled.
Ground 3 contends that the Tribunal was unreasonable and biased. It is well-established that an allegation of bias is serious which must be firmly and distinctly made and clearly proven: see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17
(“Jia Legeng”) at [127]. The mere fact that the Tribunal made findings of fact as to its serious concerns in relation to the applicant does not give rise to an inference of bias by itself or suggest that the Tribunal approached its task with a mind other than open to persuasion. A fair reading of the Tribunal’s decision does not disclose any pre-judgement in the sense the Tribunal was “so committed to a conclusion already formed as to be incapable of alteration, or being persuaded indifferently, whatever evidence or argument may be presented”: see Jia Legeng at [69].
Particular (a) takes issue with the Tribunal’s findings at paragraph 80 of its decision, that there would be little utility and setting aside the cancellation in circumstances where the applicant would remain in breach of his visa conditions. It was submitted that the Tribunal was permitted to put its doubts and concerns in relation of the applicant’s claims and evidence to him: see Jatin v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 150 at [21]. The Tribunal provided the applicant with an opportunity to provide further evidence within 7 days after the completion of the hearing, however, he failed to do so. It was submitted that there is no unreasonableness in the circumstances of this matter.
Particular (b) contends that the Tribunal conducted the hearing without reviewing or considering the documents provided by the applicant on the day of the hearing. This contention cannot be made out. The Tribunal’s Decision Record expressly sets out the documentation received from the applicant on the day of the hearing at paragraph 12. Further, the Decision Record addresses the information and submissions provided by the applicant at length at paragraphs 11 to 36 of its decision.
Particular (c) asserts that the Tribunal failed to consider that the applicant had an extensive gambling problem. The Tribunal was not required to expressly refer to each and every individual piece of evidence provided by the applicant, or to make findings regarding each of those pieces of evidence: see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 at [67]-[68]. In any event, the Tribunal expressly referred to the applicant’s bank statements and considered his evidence that he had a gambling addiction at paragraphs 20 to 22 of its decision. Whilst expressed as a failure to consider evidence and submissions, the substance of the applicant’s complaints is, in essence, that the Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s evidence. This invites the Court to undertake impermissible merits review.
Particular (e) is misconceived as s 120 of the Act does not relate to the Tribunal. In any event, the applicant was on notice by virtue of the NOICC and the delegate’s decision that he was required to maintain enrolment in a registered course which would provide a qualification from the AQF that was at the same level as, or higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted.
Particular (f) refers to a selection of words taken from the transcript of the hearing. Those words are not to be read in isolation. When the transcript is read fairly and as a whole, the transcript reveals an extensive discussion between the applicant and the Tribunal.
Ground 4 contends that the Tribunal disregarded substantive submissions and acted “contrary to the information as required of the position of an independent review authority”.
Particular (a) contends that, at the hearing, the applicant’s representative submitted that the applicant could provide evidence that he would be compliant with the visa condition, which is contrary to the Tribunal’s findings from paragraphs 80 to 84 of its decision. This misunderstands the Tribunal’s Decision Record. Whilst the applicant’s representative at the hearing suggested that the applicant could obtain a COE for a graduate diploma at AQF level 8, and the Tribunal afforded the applicant a further 7 days to provide any further information support of this application, no further evidence was provided, as noted by the Tribunal at paragraph 33 of its decision.
Particulars (b), (c) and (d) repeat the discussion at the hearing before the Tribunal that the applicant had a gambling issue. It is unclear what error of law the applicant is attempting to assert. The Tribunal plainly considered the applicant’s evidence that he had a gambling addiction at paragraphs 20 to 22 of its decision. However, as the Tribunal indicated to the applicant, it was of the view that this was a circumstance that was within the applicant’s control and he was responsible for it, which is reflected at paragraph 70 of the Tribunal’s decision. There was no “substantive submission” that the Tribunal disregarded, and it was open for the Tribunal to find that these were not matters that were beyond the applicant’s control.
CONSIDERATION
The Court has read both the Decision Record of the Tribunal as well as a transcript of the hearing. At page 3 of the transcript, the Tribunal noted that submissions and documentation were only filed with the Tribunal half an hour prior to the hearing. The Tribunal later indicated it was in receipt of this documentation.
At page 5 of the transcript, it was put to the applicant that he knew that he was obliged to hold either a level 8 or a level 9 or 10 qualification as part of his visa. The applicant answered “yes”.
At page 8 of the transcript, the Tribunal received evidence from the applicant that in his first semester, he failed all of his subjects and that his parents were unable to pay the tuition fees for the second semester in 2017 in the sum of $10,800. The Tribunal noted that none of the courses that the applicant had subsequently enrolled in were of level 8 AQF or higher.
At the bottom of page 14 of the transcript, and over to page to 15, the following interaction took place:
Member: So one of the first questions - one of the first issues I need to determine - is whether or not you are in breach of your visa, which establishes the ground for the visa condition. And on your evidence it’s clear that since at least late 2017 you have been in breach in breach of your visa condition. Do you agree with me on that?
Applicant: Yes
Member: all right. So, the next issue I’ve got to look at are some discretionary factors. Before I do that, tell me what is it you intend doing - what job do you intend doing when you complete your studies?
At page 17 of the transcript, an exchange takes place as to whether the applicant would actually complete courses if his visa were not cancelled:
Member: And I’m not assured - cannot be assured - I have no confidence in your academic record for the last three years that if I set aside the cancellation that you’ll actually complete your courses.
Applicant: I will do it…..
Member: You’re not giving me a lot of confidence Mr Thapa.
Applicant: I can - I can really assure you that I’ll really complete my study, because I have already realised my mistake. I just need a second chance to prove myself wrong and to make my parents happy and proud once again.
Member: Mr Thapa, this isn’t a second chance that you’re asking for, this is a fourth chance, and you know that.
Applicant: Yes
At page 20 of the transcript, it is recorded that the Tribunal member provided an opportunity for the applicant’s representative to make a submission over and above the written reasons that he had provide to the Tribunal. The Tribunal understood the reason why the written submissions were provided late. In fact the Tribunal thanked the representative for providing some materials.
The member indicated to the applicant’s representative that he was concerned that even if he set aside the cancellation, on the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant was still in breach of the conditions of his visa in that he was not studying a course of the requisite level. The background to the gambling addiction was covered. Evidence was given by the applicant’s representative that the applicant had not undertaken any formal counselling in relation to his addiction to gambling and playing computer games. The applicant’s representative indicated that if the visa was restored, he would be able to help the applicant obtain a COE for a Graduate Diploma which would be at AQF level 8.
The Court notes that the transcript of the hearing of 7 February 2020 is recorded as finishing at 2:48 PM, which, assuming a 2.00 PM start, indicates the hearing went for 48 minutes. This indicates that a considerable amount of time was spent by the Tribunal listening to the submissions of the applicant’s representative.
In terms of the grounds of judicial review, when taken with the particulars provided, they represent a wide ranging attack on the Tribunal which includes virtually every possible ground of jurisdictional error. Many of the particulars assert errors which simply cannot withstand close scrutiny and in some cases do not appear to have an appropriate evidential foundation.
As noted by the first respondent, none of the applicant’s submissions or indeed the grounds of judicial review, grapple with the essential difficulty that subsequent to the cancellation of the applicant’s first enrolment, the applicant failed to maintain an enrolment in a registered course of study that was at the same or higher AQF level as the course for which his visa was initially approved. Even when provided with an opportunity to provide further information at the completion of the hearing, the applicant failed to provide the relevant evidence that he could meet this essential criteria for the grant of his visa. Unless the applicant could produce a COE for a course that was of AQF level 8 or higher, the applicant was, and remained, in breach of his visa conditions. At no point has either the applicant or his legal representative come to grips with this essential difficulty and that as a result, the applicant was in breach of his visa conditions. Be that as it may, the Court will turn its mind to the various matters put forward.
Ground one is a broad assertion that the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations. Particular (a) asserts that the Tribunal failed to consider that, at the time of hearing, the applicant was generally continuously enrolled in a registered course. A fair reading of the Tribunal’s decision indicates that it was completely aware and indeed made reference to the fact that the applicant had been enrolled in various courses at paragraph 40. The Tribunal was also aware that the applicant had failed to complete any of the courses he had been enrolled in. This aspect has no merit.
Particular (b) contends that the Tribunal did not consider that the applicant chose a different area of study on the basis of a career change. Again, this misstates the facts. As pointed out by the first respondent, at paragraph 20 of its decision, the Tribunal records that the reason the applicant and enrolled in a Diploma of Information Technology course was to make it easier to pass his courses. It was not due to a change in career. Particular (b) has no merit.
Particulars (c) and (d) assert that the Tribunal did not consider that the applicant’s grandmother’s medical condition affected his study. This assertion is plainly incorrect. The Tribunal expressly considered those claims at numerous places, however, found them unconvincing. The Tribunal noted in particular that the grandmother’s medical condition did not become serious until after the applicant’s initial course had been cancelled. Particular (c) has no merit.
Particulate (d) asserts that the Tribunal did not consider that the applicant could not be enrolled in a higher AQF level course as his parents could not support him financially. At paragraphs 18 to 19 of its decision, the Tribunal records these claims. At paragraphs 50 to 51 of its decision, the Tribunal finds these claims unconvincing, noting that the grandmother incurred the majority of the medical expenses when she was hospitalised in September 2017 by which time the applicant had already lost enrolment in the Diploma of Engineering course in August 2017. Further, the applicant apparently had sufficient funds to meet the tuition fees for the Diploma of Information Technology course at Strathfield College. The Tribunal recorded that, in these circumstances, the applicant should have had sufficient funds to meet the tuition expenses for the Diploma of Engineering. Particular (d) has no merit.
Particular (e) asserts that the Tribunal did not consider the degree of hardship that may be caused to the applicant if he were sent back to Nepal without a degree. These matters were specifically dealt with at paragraphs 59 through to 64 of the Tribunal’s decision. Particular (e) is factually incorrect and has no merit.
Particular (f) asserts that the Tribunal did not consider that the applicant’s gambling’s problems were beyond his control. This assertion misstates the facts. During the course of the hearing, at page 10 of the transcript, the applicant specifically acknowledged that the gambling arose due to circumstances that were under his control. The applicant was then asked “and you’re the person responsible for it?” To which the applicant answered “yes”. Further, the issue of the applicant’s gambling was extensively covered in submissions by the applicant’s representative towards the end of the hearing. Particular (f) has no merit.
Ground two is another broad assertion of jurisdictional error including legal unreasonableness or having misconstrued or misinterpreted the statutory requirements of the Act.
Particular (a) asserts that the Tribunal failed to consider that condition 8202(b) of the Regulations only requires the applicant to complete the same level of qualification, in this case a Bachelors level. The requirements of condition 8202 of the Regulations are set out above and include that the applicant must maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the AQF that is at the same level or higher level than the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted. The AQF system prescribes a level to each individual course regardless of how they are titled. It is impossible to read condition 8202 of the Regulations in the manner that the applicant asserts, in that the applicant only needed to be enrolled in a course which was described as Bachelor level. In the Court’s view, the interpretation of condition 8202 of the Regulations is very clear in that the applicant must maintain enrolment in a course which is of the same or higher level under the AQF. Particular (a) has no merit.
Particular (b) is a variation of the same theme. It is absolutely clear, at paragraphs 12 and 27 of its decision, that the Tribunal accepted the applicant’s evidence that on the day of the hearing, he held a COE for a Bachelor of Interactive Media with a completion date of 11 November 2022. However, the Tribunal found that this was at a level below the course that the applicant was originally enrolled and, ultimately, a breach of condition 8202 of the Regulations.
Particular (c) asserts that the Tribunal failed to consider Direction No 61. It is clear that the Tribunal considered the applicant’s explanation as to his gambling issue but was not satisfied that gambling was a matter which would provide exceptional circumstances for a breach of the visa condition that were beyond the visa applicant’s control. Gambling is not an issue covered by Direction No 61. Particular (c) has no merit.
Particular (d) asserts that the Tribunal did not make sufficient enquiries for the purpose of travel, extent of compliance, consequence of cancellation, internal obligations and that the Tribunal asked only “limited questions” Firstly, it is well settled law that the function of the Tribunal is to respond to the case that the applicant advances: see Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 197 ALR 398 at 405. Further, there is no general obligation imposed upon the Tribunal to investigate the applicant’s claims. A fair reading of the Tribunal’s decision indicates that it considered all of the matters put forward by the applicant in line with PAM3 but was unconvinced by them. Particular (d) has no merit.
Particular (e) asserts that the Tribunal acted “under dictation and applied inflexible policy” of the factors the Tribunal was not required to consider. This particular is confused and unclear to say the least. As to what policy or factors the Tribunal was not required to consider is unclear. Again, a fair reading of the Tribunal’s Decision Record reveals it to be unexceptional, in that it first considered whether or not there was a breach of the conditions of the visa, and, having a so found, then fully considered the evidence in the light of the various considerations set out in PAM 3. Particular (e) has no merit.
Ground three consists of a broad assertion of legal unreasonableness and/or bias. The test for legal unreasonableness is “stringent” and will only arises in rare cases: see Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) HCA 18 at [30] and [113]. A claim of bias is serious and requires evidence, such as a transcript of the Tribunal hearing. Further, it is a rare and exceptional case where bias can be demonstrated solely from the published reasons of the decision. Similarly, the mere fact that the Tribunal makes adverse findings in respect of the applicant does not give rise to an inference of bias, or, by itself, suggest that the decision-maker approached its task other than with a mind open to persuasion: see SCAA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668 at [38].
Particular (a) takes issue with Tribunal’s finding at paragraph 80 of its decision, noting that the applicant had not, at that stage, produced evidence of a COE in a course at level 8 or higher of the AQF. As pointed out by the first respondent, the applicant was on notice of this issue as a result of the original decision of the delegate. Further, the applicant was provided with an opportunity to provide additional information within seven days of the hearing date which may have allowed him to obtain a COE at the requisite level. The applicant did not do so. There is nothing legally unreasonable in this finding, nor is it evidence of bias for the Tribunal to raise concerns with an applicant in order that he might address them. Particular (a) has no merit
Particular (b) contends that the Tribunal conducted a hearing without actually receiving documents provided by the applicant, nor did the Tribunal review and consider the documents. As pointed out by the first respondent, the Tribunal set out, in detail, the documents it received and considered in the decision record at paragraph 12. This included the documents which were provided very late by the applicant, which the Tribunal specifically thanked the applicant’s representative for. It may well be the case that the submissions were considered after the hearing, however, the applicant’s representative was given the opportunity to make oral submissions at the hearing. There is simply no basis for the allegation that the Tribunal failed to consider those documents. Particular (b) has no merit.
Particular (c) asserts that the Tribunal failed to consider that the applicant had an extensive gambling problem. The Tribunal expressly referred to the applicant’s bank statements at paragraph 12 of its decision, and made reference to the fact that the applicant gave evidence that he had a gambling addiction at paragraphs 20 to 22 of its decision. At its highest, this ground simply asserts that the Tribunal did not give sufficient weight to this matter. It is an invitation for impermissible merits review. Particular (c) has no merit.
Particular (d) makes an assertion that because the Tribunal heard another matter on the same day, this somehow infected the Tribunal’s decision. It was asserted that as the next matter involved a student visa, that this matter somehow infected the Tribunals’ decision in the current matter. No evidence is provided to support this assertion, for example, the inclusion of evidentiary material from another matter appearing in the current matter. The allegation is serious, and yet, has no evidentiary basis. Particular (d) has no merit.
Particular (e) is misconceived as s 120 of the Act does not apply to the Tribunal. In any event, as outlined by the first respondent, the applicant was on notice as to the issue of failing to maintain enrolment in a course with an AQF level of 8 or higher. Particular (e) has no merit.
Particular (f) asserts a series of quotes provide evidence of bias or legal unreasonableness. The quotes indicate the concerns that the member had and were an opportunity for the applicant to provide additional evidence that would persuade the Tribunal member of the applicant’s case. There was extensive discussion between the applicant and the Tribunal member. The Tribunal is not required to accept, uncritically, any and all claims made by an applicant: see Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451. Robust and forthright questioning by the Tribunal is not evidence of bias: see SZOAF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 431 at [17] or indeed, in this matter, of legal unreasonableness. Particular (f) has no merit.
Ground four alleges that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error by disregarding substantive submissions of material importance and acting contrary to the information as required in the position of an independent review authority.
Particular (a) attached to this ground suggests that the applicant’s representative submitted that he could provide evidence that the applicant would be compliant with his visa obligations in the future. Such a submission appears to ground itself on the basis that it was open to the applicant to continue submitting information in the hope that this would result in a favourable outcome for him. The Court notes that the applicant was given an opportunity to provide further information, but had failed to do so.
Particulars (b), (c) and (d) suggest that the Tribunal either ignored or did not take into account the applicant’s gambling issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Tribunal clearly addressed this issue substantively and determined that it was an issue that was completely within the applicant’s control. This was a finding that was open to the Tribunal on the evidence that was before it. The Court notes that there was no medical evidence in regards to the applicant seeking treatment for a gambling addiction. The assertion in the applicant’s submissions that the applicant’s gambling addiction was part of a bigger problem and cannot be attributed to the individual, but rather society appears to be more a philosophical statement than a submission grounded in law. The Court agrees with the first respondent that it was open for the Tribunal to find that these were matters that within the applicant’s control, given the way the matter proceeded, and the lack of evidence in relation to the applicant’s gambling problem. Ground four has no merit.
CONCLUSION
The application is dismissed.
I certify that the preceding ninety-five (95) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Humphreys. Associate:
Dated: 14 May 2021
2
14
0