Specialist in Australian Immigration, Migration Consultant and Online Australian Visa Assessment Service.
Australian Immigration Specialists - Australian Immigration Consultants Online Australian Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia
  Research Home

Categories
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Federal Court
Federal Magistrates Court
Full Federal Court
High Court
Migration Review Tribunal
Other Jurisdictions
Refugee Review Tribunal
Recently Added
Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (6 September 2001)
Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43 (9 September 2004)
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal; Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30

"Use the Migration Specialists that migration agents use"
Cases

MIGRATION - Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision - refusal of a protection visa - applicant claiming political persecution in Bangladesh - claims rejected as not credible - whether RRT proceedings were fair - no reviewable error found - application dismissed.

SZAPF v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 684 (8 October 2004)

SZAPF v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 684 (8 October 2004)
Last Updated: 19 November 2004

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZAPF v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION
[2004] FMCA 684




MIGRATION - Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision - refusal of a protection visa - applicant claiming political persecution in Bangladesh - claims rejected as not credible - whether RRT proceedings were fair - no reviewable error found - application dismissed.




Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s.424A, 425A, 427

Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration (2003) 75 ALD 630

Gundawrdene v Minister for Immigration [2000] FCA 1293

Minister for Immigration v Jia (2001) 205 CLR 507

Minister for Immigration v NAMW [2004] FCAFC 264

Minister for Immigration v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220

Minister for Immigration v SBAN [2002] FCAFC 431

NAHI v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCAFC 10

NARV & Ors v Minister for Immigration (2003) 203 ALR 494

Ou v Minister for Immigration [2000] FCA 1152

Perera v Minister for Immigration (1999) 56 ALD 231

SBBS v Minister for Immigration (2002) 194 ALR 749

SCAA v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCA 668

SZAKF v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 318

VCAK of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 459

W389/01A v Minister for Immigration (2002) 125 FCR 407

WAGJ of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCAFC 277

Applicant:
SZAPF




Respondent:


MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS




File No:


SYG822 of 2003




Delivered on:


8 October 2004




Delivered at:


Sydney




Hearing date:


8 October 2004




Judgment of:


Driver FM




REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent:


Mr J A C Potts




Solicitors for the Respondent:


Clayton Utz




ORDERS

(1) The application is dismissed.

(2) The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $4,000.

(3) The Court directs that the transcript of today's proceedings be obtained.

(4) The transcript, together with the reasons for judgment in this matter are to be forwarded by the Court to the Legal Services Commission and to the Migration Agents Registration Authority for such action as they consider appropriate.

(5) The Court directs that the applicant's name is not to appear on the transcript of these proceedings.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES

COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT

SYDNEY



SYG822 of 2003

SZAPF



Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION &

MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS





Respondent


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)

1. This is an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the RRT") made on 28 March 2003 and handed down on 17 April 2003. The RRT affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant is from Bangladesh and made claims of political persecution. The relevant background facts are set out in written submissions prepared by Mr Potts on behalf of the Minister. I adopt paragraph 2 through to paragraph 15 of those written submissions for the purposes of this judgment:

The applicant is a 25 year old Bangladeshi citizen.[1] He entered Australia on 2 April 2000,[2] deserting a ship which had docked in Perth.[3] He submitted an application for a protection (Class XA) visa which was received by the Department on 10 May 2000.[4] The applicant claimed a well founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh on the grounds of political opinion, and claimed that he had been a prominent political activist in the Bangladesh Freedom Party ("BNP").[5]

The Minister's delegate refused the application for a protection visa on 29 May 2000,[6] and a copy of the decision record was sent to the applicant on that date.[7]

On 9 June 2000 the applicant applied to the RRT for review of the delegate's decision.[8]

On 6 August 2002, the RRT invited the applicant to attend a hearing on 16 September 2002,[9] and the applicant attended that hearing.[10]

On 15 October 2002, the applicant requested a further 8 weeks to bring documents from Bangladesh.[11] It seems that on 25 November 2002, the RRT received a number of further documents from the applicant.[12] On 25 November 2002, the RRT invited the applicant to a second hearing on 29 November 2002.[13] That hearing was postponed until 18 March 2003,[14] which the applicant again attended.[15]

On 28 March 2003, the RRT made its decision.[16] On 31 March 2003 the RRT wrote to the applicant indicating that its decision would be handed down on 17 April 2003.[17]

On 2 April 2003, the RRT received a further letter from the applicant dated 28 March 2003, making further submissions and enclosing an untranslated and unidentified document.[18] The RRT wrote to the applicant in a letter dated (presumably erroneously) 1 April 2003, indicating that the RRT member had considered the additional material.[19]

The decision was handed down on 17 April 2003,[20] and a copy was sent to the applicant under cover of a letter of that date.[21]

The RRT's decision affirmed the decision of the delegate of the Minister to refuse the grant of a protection visa to the applicant.[22]

The applicant's claims

The applicant made various claims arising out of his association with the BNP and the Freedom Party.[23] He claimed that he was a prominent political activist and belonged to the BNP, holding various leadership roles.[24] As a result of speaking against the Awami League, he became a major political target, and was attacked and his family members assaulted physically and mentally.[25] A false case was lodged against him, and he became wanted by police.[26] The applicant claimed that he and his friends had thwarted an attempt by a BNP organiser to rig votes in the 1996 election, and that this organiser had threatened to kill the applicant.[27]

The RRT's decision

The RRT rejected the applicant's claims, essentially on credibility grounds.

The RRT was not satisfied that the applicant was at any risk of harm from a BNP organiser. It found his evidence on these matters weak and unconvincing.[28] The applicant required an "adjournment of some minutes" before he was able to recall the name of the BNP organiser.[29]

The RRT noted that the applicant had provided court documents in support of his claim that the Awami League had filed a false case against him. The RRT noted that the applicant had arrived in Australia in April 2000, but that the court documents alleged that offences took place in July and August 2001. The RRT put to the applicant its concerns as to the authenticity of the court documents. The applicant agreed that the documents "must have been false". In such circumstances, the RRT found that the submission of these documents was a "deliberate attempt to mislead the Tribunal" and that this "cast considerable doubts on his credibility". The RRT found the applicant's evidence to be "generally unconvincing". The applicant submitted further police documents, which the RRT was also not satisfied were genuine. The RT was therefore not satisfied that the applicant would face any charges in he returned to Bangladesh. Further, the RRT was not satisfied that the applicant would be denied a fair trial on any charges he might face, or that there was a real chance of conviction on false charges.

The RRT also doubted the applicant's claims to fear persecution because he was a student leader for the Freedom Party, and that members of the Awami League had filed false cases against him.

2. The applicant proceeds on the basis of an application for judicial review filed on 13 May 2003. The grounds advanced in that application are set out in paragraph 16 of Mr Potts's written submissions, which I also adopt for the purposes of this judgment:

The applicant filed an application in this Court on 13 May 2003. The application states nine grounds of review, viz:

(1) The tribunal did not take into account the court [sic] in Bangladesh of a convention based reason.

(2) The tribunal made its decision in bad faith.

(3) The tribunal deprived me of the natural justice.

(4) The tribunal denied the evidentiary proof of my claim.

(5) The tribunal's decision did not reflect the material facts of my claim.

(6) The tribunal has given a decision, which was preset in the back of it's [sic] mind.

(7) The tribunal mixed up many facts with this decision which affected the decision.

(8) The tribunal concentrated in [sic] particular fact, while ignored many other facts in this condition [sic].

(9) The tribunal hearing the interpreter did not interpret properly [sic]."

3. No particulars of the grounds were provided. However, the applicant has filed written submissions on 1 October 2004. Those written submissions are relevantly recited in paragraph 17 of Mr Potts's written submissions, which I also adopt for the purposes of this judgment:

The applicant has sent to the respondent written submissions dated 30 September 2004 in support of his claim. These submissions appear to raise the following additional grounds of review (which for convenience, will be numbered sequentially to follow the grounds of review in the application):

10. The tribunal failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Migration Act") in that the applicant was not provided with the independent country information which was not "just about a class of person of which the applicant was member" and which fell outside the meaning of s.424A(3)(a) of the Migration Act, where such information was relevant to the RRT's decisions not only because it concerned the class of persons, but also because it went to a separate issue in the proceeding: NARV & Ors v Minister for Immigration [sic] (2003) 203 ALR 494

11. The procedures that were required by the Migration Act or the regulations to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed.

12. The RRT ignored the merits of the claim and the RRT gave the decision on the basis of the dated information without any investigation.

13. The RRT failed to take a relevant consideration into account in exercising its power to determine the applicant as a refugee.

14. That the decision involved a jurisdictional error of law involving an incorrect interpretation of the applicable law to the fact [sic] of the case was found by the RRT.

15. The RRT decision was unjust and was made without taking into account the full gravity of the applicant's circumstances and consequences of the claim.

16. The decision by the RRT is not justifiable by the evidence used in the decision. The used [sic] documents have indicated clear violation of human rights, which is tantamount to persecution. The RRT ignored its own information in deciding the case.

17. The decision was an improper exercise of the power confirmed [sic] by this Act or the regulations and the applicant was deprived to attain [sic] natural justice to [the applicant].

18. [T]he RRT decision did reflect the mistake or error in the decision and also the RRT ignored or failed to consider my claims."

4. Both the applicant and Mr Potts made oral submissions. It was apparent from the applicant's oral submissions that he is concerned about the merits of the RRT decision. The applicant failed before the RRT because he was disbelieved. The presiding member clearly formed a strong view that the applicant's claims were fabrications and that documents supporting them were also fabrications. This has led the applicant to the view that the presiding member was biased and that the RRT proceedings were not fair. Those are the grounds which are dealt with in the applicant's written submissions.

5. The ground of bias as advanced in the applicant's written and oral submissions has no substance. Mr Potts deals with this issue in his written submissions in paragraphs 19 through to 24. I agree with and adopt those submissions for the purposes of this judgment:

These allege bad faith and actual bias respectively. The grounds are supported by written submissions which allege that the decision maker got the facts wrong, took into account irrelevant matter, did not take certain matters into consideration, and that the decision maker did not make an honest attempt to come to the right decision, also the decision maker intentionally made a bad decision. All but the last two of these matters are incapable of constituting bad faith or actual bias. It is difficult to see how the RRT failed to make an honest attempt to review the applicant's case. There is no foundation for the allegation that the RRT "intentionally made a bad decision".

The Full Federal Court has examined the matters to be proven where bad faith has been alleged, see: SBBS v Minister for Immigration (2002) 194 ALR 749 at [43]-[48]; and Minister for Immigration v SBAN [2002] FCAFC 431 at [7]-[11]. An allegation of this kind is a serious matter and ought not to be made lightly. An allegation of bad faith involves personal fault on the part of the decision-maker. The mere fact of an adverse finding is not evidence of bad faith. The elements required to be proven, as discussed by the Full Court in SBBS, have not been made out here. There is nothing in the circumstances of this case to justify a finding of bad faith. This ground should be rejected.

In Minister for Immigration v Jia (2001) 205 CLR 507 Gleeson CJ and Gummow J observed that a party asserting actual bias on the part of a decision-maker carries a heavy onus. The allegation must be "distinctly made and clearly proved": Gleeson CJ and Gummow J at [69]; and Kirby J at [127].

Bias in the form of pre-judgment occurs where the decision-maker's mind is so committed to a conclusion already formed as to be incapable of alteration, whatever evidence or arguments may be presented: Jia at [71]-[72]; and Minister for Immigration v SBAN [2002] FCAFC 431 at [10] per Keifel J.

An allegation of actual bias concerns the state of mind of the decision-maker. As von Doussa J observed in SCAA v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCA 668 at [37] a finding of actual bias is a grave finding and cannot be made lightly. The question is whether the decision-maker's mind is open to persuasion.

There is nothing in the facts of this case to justify a finding of actual bias.

6. In relation to procedural fairness, two main issues arise. The first concerns a letter that was sent by the applicant to the RRT on 28 March 2003[30]. I am prepared to accept on the basis of the material, that the newspaper article appearing in Bengali[31] on page 139 of the court book was included with that letter. No written translation of the letter is available, however the interpreter read in court the letter in English. That reading disclosed that the article relates significantly to the issues addressed by the applicant in the letter dated 28 March 2003. The article provides some additional details.

7. Essentially, the article refers to the applicant's asserted role as a student involved in politics in Bangladesh and refers to the events alleged to have occurred in 1996 at the time of a Bangladesh election. The newspaper was reportedly published on 21 March 2003, some three years after the applicant came to Australia.

8. The RRT wrote to the applicant by letter dated 1 April 2003 stating relevantly that the RRT head received the letter dated 28 March 2003 and that the member reviewing the case has considered this material. It is not clear whether the author of that letter was intending to refer to just the letter itself in English or also to the newspaper article which had been sent in its original form in the Bengali language. The date of 1 April 2003 on the letter is almost certainly wrong because the applicant's letter was not received by the RRT until 2 April 2003.

9. I am prepared to infer that the presiding member would have had very little time to consider the material in the letter and in the newspaper article. Nevertheless, I am unable to conclude on the state of the evidence that the presiding member in fact did not consider that material. The presiding member would have had some opportunity to consider the material in the letter and may have had an opportunity to have the newspaper article translated for him.

10. The issue arising from the circumstances is whether the applicant was misled by the RRT letter. In the absence of evidence establishing that the statement in the letter was wrong, the applicant could not have been misled. Even if the applicant had been misled, I do not think that any practical unfairness resulted. That is because the RRT had adopted such a clear and comprehensive view as to the applicant's lack of credibility by that point that the additional material could not have made any difference. The front page of the RRT decision indicates that the presiding member had already made his decision on 28 March 2003 before the additional material was received.

11. In the circumstances, I am prepared to infer that the additional material did not make any difference to the presiding member's reasons. The presiding member had already decided that the applicant's claims were false and the documents he produced to support them had been fabricated. If the presiding member had had the opportunity to consider the newspaper article appearing on page 139 of the court book in English, it is almost certain that his views would have been reinforced. The newspaper article is very odd. It purports to be an article about the applicant as a person of no particular political significance and relates to events allegedly occurring some seven years before the article was written. The applicant had been outside of Bangladesh for three years before the article was written. It appears on its face to be an entirely self serving document. It appears on its face to be an item placed in the newspaper in order to assist the applicant with his claim for a protection visa.

12. There was, I conclude, no procedural unfairness resulting from the RRT's treatment of the material sent to the RRT under cover of the letter dated 28 March 2003.

13. The second issue concerns the RRT's treatment of country information relating to document fraud in Bangladesh. It is well established that if reliance upon country information about Bangladesh documents is determinative of an application, that information should be disclosed to the applicant so that the applicant can comment upon it. In this proceeding, whether or not there is an obligation arising from s.424A of the Migration Act an obligation arises from the general law.

14. I am satisfied from what appears on page 151 of the court book, that the substance of the information was disclosed to the applicant at the hearing. The applicant had a sufficient opportunity to respond to that information. The presiding member relevantly said:

It was put to the Applicant that there was evidence that fraudulent documents were common in claims from Bangladesh and that fraudulent court documents could be obtained in Bangladesh. It was noted that the Applicant had been in Australia since 2000, and so was not in Bangladesh at the time of the alleged offences or charges.

The reference to offences and charges is to assertions concerning false political charges laid against the applicant.

15. The presiding member went on:

At first the Applicant seemed to say that the documents were genuine; then he agreed that they must have been false. He said that he had been sent them by a friend. The Applicant had thought that they could be genuine but was not sure.

16. The applicant told me from the bar table that this was not an accurate representation of what he in fact said. However, he has produced no evidence of what took place at the RRT hearing. Directions in this matter were made by Registrar Hedge on 12 June 2003. The applicant was relevantly required to file any evidence on which he proposed to rely by 30 September 2003. That was more than 12 months ago. No evidence has been filed. The applicant took advantage of access to free legal advice under the Minister's pilot advice scheme. I am satisfied on the basis of exhibit R2 filed in these proceedings, that the adviser to the applicant had access to the tapes of the RRT hearing. There has been ample time for a transcript of the proceedings to be prepared should that have been considered necessary.

17. The applicant has also asserted that there were translation difficulties at the RRT hearing, but again no evidence has been provided. In that regard I note that the terms of ground 9 of the judicial review application are very general.

18. The applicant told me that the judicial review application and his written submissions had been prepared by his present migration adviser, Dr Hoq Mollah. He told me that he had paid $1,000 to Dr Mollah for his services. In the light of that information, I have decided that the transcript of today's proceedings, together with this decision, should be referred to the Legal Services Commission and to the Migration Agents Registration Authority for such action as they consider appropriate.

19. In my view, no procedural unfairness in the RRT proceedings has been demonstrated. The applicant has failed to establish that he was misled by anything said or done by the RRT. He has had an opportunity to comment on adverse country information.

20. The remaining grounds of review are dealt with by Mr Potts in paragraphs 29 through to 44 of his written submissions. While in my view there is no substance to those grounds in the absence of particulars, for completeness, I adopt those paragraphs for the purposes of this judgment:

It is difficult to understand these grounds as anything other than a complaint about the RRT's findings of fact and the merits of its decision, and a complaint that those findings were adverse to the applicant. To engage in fact finding about the merits of the applicant's case is no part of the function of the Court in dealing with an application for relief under s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). It is necessary for the applicant to establish jurisdictional error. Whatever be the boundaries of jurisdictional error, they do no comprehend errors of fact as to the merits of the case put to the RRT: NAHI v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCAFC 10 at [10]. No jurisdictional error is made out.

Eighth ground

This is essentially a complaint about findings of fact. To the extent that it alleges a failure to consider a relevant matter, no where does the applicant identify what that matter was, or why it was relevant.

Ninth ground

This ground complains about the adequacies of the interpreter. Absent compelling evidence, and there is no evidence in this case, this ground must be rejected.

For the applicant to succeed in an argument that the RRT failed to comply with s.425 of the Act by reason of inadequate translation services during the RRT hearing, he would need to establish that there were such errors, to identify with some specificity exactly what mistranslations occurred, and what the correct translations would have been, and to establish that the standard of interpretation was so inadequate that he was effectively prevented from giving evidence or that errors made by the interpreter at the hearing were material to conclusions of the RRT adverse to him. No such matters have been established: SZAKF v Minister for Immigration [2004] FMCA 318 at [34]. See also: Perera v Minister for Immigration (1999) 56 ALD 231.

Tenth ground

The applicant asserts that the RRT failed to comply with s.424A, by failing to provide him with certain country information, and relies upon NARV. NARV no longer represents the law on the effect of s.424A(3)(a): Minister for Immigration v NAMW [2004] FCAFC 264. The RRT was not obliged to provide particulars of country information pursuant to s.424A(1).

Eleventh ground

Beyond the matters raised in the tenth ground, the applicant does not identify which procedures he says were not followed.

The only apparent failures to follow the procedures required by the Act and the Regulations were in the giving of notice of the second hearing. The prescribed period of notice under s.425A(3) is 14 days after the day on which the notice is received,[32]. A notice sent is deemed to be received 7 working days after the date of the document[33]. In this case, notice of the second hearing was given, in the first instance, on 25 November 2002, for a hearing to be held on 29 November 2002.[34] This hearing date was vacated.[35] Notice was given of the revised second hearing date by letter dated 12 March 2003, for a hearing on 18 March 2003.[36] The applicant however attended this hearing on 18 March 2003, and gave evidence and made submissions. In the circumstances, these failures to comply with the Act and Regulations were immaterial and did not constitute jurisdictional errors.

Twelfth ground

This ground is in part a complaint about findings of fact and the merits of the RRT's decision. Insofar as it complains about the use of dated information, it is presumably referring to country information. It is not an error of law to rely or prefer to rely on general country information such as DFAT reports in preference to the applicant's evidence, even if the material is outdated: Gundawrdene v Minister for Immigration [2000] FCA 1293; Ou v Minister for Immigration [2000] FCA 1152.

To the extent that this ground suggests that the RRT erred by not conducting some investigation, the RRT was under no duty to investigate the appellant's claims, nor under any duty to consider utilising such permissive statutory powers as it had which might enable it to investigate (eg. s.427(1)(d)): VCAK of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 459 at [27]; WAGJ of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCAFC 277 at [21], [24]-[25]; W389/01A v Minister for Immigration (2002) 125 FCR 407 at [74]-[78].

Thirteenth ground

The applicant does not identify the relevant consideration the RRT allegedly failed to take into account. Although the RRT's decision was made on 28 March 2003, the RRT considered the material submitted after this date.[37] The RRT was not obliged to refer to every piece of evidence in its reasons: eg. Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration (2003) 75 ALD 630 at 46.

There is no other apparent failure of the RRT in this regard.

Fourteenth ground

Nowhere does the applicant identify what law the RRT applied incorrectly, other than in the other grounds of review where it is said that the RRT failed to accord procedural fairness and observe the requirements of s.424A. No such failure is apparent on the face of the RRT's reasons. This ground should be rejected.

Sixteenth ground

This is in substance a complaint about findings of fact. The evidence was for the RRT to weigh. It is not readily apparent that the RRT ignored any evidence. In any event, as Kenny J said in Minister for Immigration v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220 at [146]:

A tribunal such as the RRT does not commit an error of law merely because it finds facts wrongly or upon a doubtful basis, or because it adopts unsound or questionable reasoning.

Seventeenth ground

This is a hybrid ground complaining about failures to comply with the Act and the Regulations and a failure to accord the applicant procedural fairness. The substance of these matters have been addressed in relation to other grounds.

Eighteenth ground

The applicant does not identify what claim he says the RRT failed to consider. The RRT did not expressly refer to the claim made by the applicant in his letter of 28 March 2003 that "No one gives job to criminal in our country", however, this claim was effectively dealt with by the RRT when it concluded that it was not satisfied that the applicant faced charges if he returned to Bangladesh.[38] There was no other basis on which the applicant claimed he would be categorised as a criminal

This ground should be rejected.

21. No jurisdictional error in the decision of the RRT has been demonstrated. The adverse findings on credibility, although strong, were reasonably open to the RRT on the material for it. It follows that the RRT decision is a privative clause decision and that the judicial review application must therefore be dismissed.

22. On the question of costs, the application having been dismissed, Mr Potts seeks an order for costs. He tells me that the Minister has incurred costs on a solicitor an client basis of approximately $5,500. On a party/party basis, Mr Potts seeks an order fixed in the sum of $4,100.

23. I am satisfied that costs in the order of $4,000 have been reasonably and properly incurred on a party/party basis. The applicant claims to be impecunious, but that is not a reason for me to refrain from making a costs order.

24. I will therefore order that the application is dismissed and the applicant is to pay the Minister's costs and disbursements of and incidental to the application, fixed in the sum of $4,000. The Court directs that the transcript of today's proceedings is to be obtained and that the transcript, together with my reasons for judgment, are to be forwarded by the Court to the Legal Services Commission and the Migration Agents Registration Authority for such action as they consider appropriate.

I certify that the preceding twenty-four (24) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Driver FM

Associate:

Date: 27 October 2004


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] court book, pages 12-13.

[2] court book, page at 14.

[3] court book, pages 15 and 24.

[4] court book, pages 1-26.

[5] court book, pages 24-26.

[6] court book, pages 33-42.

[7] court book, pages 31-32.

[8] court book, pages 43-46.

[9] court book, pages 52-53.

[10] court book, page 61.

[11] court book, page 63.

[12] court book, pages 64-127.

[13] court book, page 129.

[14] court book, pages 131-132 and 134.

[15] court book, page at 136.

[16] court book, page 146.

[17] court book, pages 141-142.

[18] court book, pages 137-140.

[19] court book, page 143.

[20] court book, page 146.

[21] court book, page 145.

[22] court book, page 146.

[23] court book, pages 24-26; 57-60; 67; 70-71; and 137-138.

[24] court book, page 24.

[25] court book, pages 25 and 58.

[26] court book, pages 25; 59 and 137.

[27] court book, page 149.

[28] court book, pages 160.10-161.1.

[29] court book, page at 150.5.

[30] court book, pages 137-138

[31] court book, page 139

[32] Reg 4.35D(b).

[33] Section 441C(4)(a).

[34] court book, page 129.

[35] court book, page 131.

[36] court book, page 134.

[37] court book, pages 137-140 and 143.

[38] court book, page 161.3.
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia