FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant in V 180 of 2001 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 1041

APPLICANT IN V 180 OF 2001  -v-  THE MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

V 180 of 2001

RYAN J

21 AUGUST 2002

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.         The application be dismissed.

2.         The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1                     This is an application for review of a decision of the Refuge Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 29 January 2001 affirming a decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

2                     The applicant is a Sri Lankan National of Sinhalese ethnicity who is Buddhist by religion.  He arrived in Australia on 17 August 1998.  The refusal of a protection visa occurred on 15 October 1998 and, on 27 October, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that refusal. 

3                     The applicant comes from the greater Colombo area of Sri Lanka.  The Tribunal noted that he has an older brother in France but his mother and sisters all continue to live in Sri Lanka.  According to the applicant, because of the problems they have encountered, they now live about seventeen miles from the original family home.

4                     The Tribunal in its reasons summarised the applicant’s claims in these terms;

“In a statement which accompanied his application, the applicant states that he and his family were strong UNP supporters and that he campaigned for the party during the local government elections.  At the hearing, the applicant said that he had had no connection at all to the UNP and confirmed that he made no claims for recognition as a refugee for this reason.

The applicant claims that he was employed as a hire car driver by S T Silva from Wattala and it was while he was working here that ‘a few young persons’ (he said three Tamils at the hearing) engaged him in July 1998, just a month or so before he came to Australia, to drive them to Ratnapura, Gampaha, Kadwatha and Kalutara in a van.  The applicant said at the hearing that they had said that they wanted to take photographs for a calendar.  The applicant took them on four day trips - the first two were on consecutive days and the other two about two weeks later.  The applicant said that he waited in the van for them.  They became friendly and while they once visited him at his home he did not know exactly where they lived because he just dropped them off.  I asked the applicant about the circumstances in which these people had visited him at his home.  He said that they had called in unannounced and had a cool drink and then left.

The applicant claims that his new friends disappeared.  He claims that the police went to the owner of the hire car and later came to his home on the night of 1 August 1998, which he said was about two weeks after a bombing had taken place, and took him to the police station where he was interrogated about ‘blowing up of transformers and cellular posts’ and asked if ‘they went in (his) vehicle’ and where the people he had driven lived.  The applicant told them that he knew nothing of these things and claims that he was assaulted with batons and accused of helping the terrorists.  He was detained overnight and assaulted again the next morning.  The applicant claims that he went with the police to show them where he had dropped off the people he had driven around, that they still did not believe him and took him back to the police station where he was tortured.  The police were rude to his mother and uncle who had come to see him and he was released on bail on condition that he report to the police every second day.  The applicant told me at the hearing that his mother had paid a bond for his release and undertook to ‘produce’ the applicant when the police asked.  He was not charged with any offence.

Two days later and ‘despite such reporting to the police’ (on 15 December 2000, the applicant wrote to the Tribunal to advise that there had been a typing mistake and that what was in fact two days had mistakenly been typed as two weeks;  the correction was also advised at the hearing), the police again took him for interrogation.  The applicant said at the hearing that he reported just once when he was required to sign a book, was told that he was in custody but was able to be at home, his mother was sent away, he was seriously assaulted and detained overnight.  He had an injured leg when he was released the next morning.  He did not report to the police station again.  The applicant stated in his application that his mother and uncle went to see members of parliament about what was happening to him but nothing came of this.  His mother and uncle feared that the applicant would be killed by the police and he went to stay with relatives of his uncle in Kurunegala about seventy miles from Colombo where he remained for about two weeks. It was agreed that he should leave the country under a different name.  An agent helped by arranging a passport ‘within five days’ and which had to be returned once he had entered Australia, and a ticket booked.  He claims that ‘during this time the police had gone to (his) home and threatened (his) mother and sisters’ by saying that if they found the applicant ‘they would dismantle (his) hands and legs’.  He said at the hearing that police have twice surrounded and searched his home and that this happened about two months after he arrived in Australia.  He said too that he had called his mother two days before the hearing and she had told him that people had come in civilian clothes and asked after the applicant four or five months ago and again two months later.”

5                     The Tribunal then noted that the applicant had travelled to Australia on another person’s passport which he explained by saying that he had been afraid to leave Sri Lanka using his own passport.  It also observed that the applicant claimed to have been told by his mother that “some civilians have come and enquired about [him]” and that he should not return to Sri Lanka.  The applicant stated his fear to be that he would be arrested, persecuted and killed by the police “for [his] unintentional involvement with blowing [up] transformers” and because of his failure to comply with reporting conditions. 

6                     The applicant also relied before the Tribunal on a letter from his mother dated 28 January 2000, which, in translation, reads;

“God Bless You!

My dear son Kumar,

So, what news of you.  As usual we are keeping fine.  We received the letter send by you.  Thank you very much.  It helped us to learn that you are keeping well.  That is a relief for us.  If you were in Sri Lanka we would have to live on burning flames.  I think you are aware of the incidents that took place in Sri Lanka in the recent past.  When your child leaves home for his work in the morning parents have to live with uncertainty with a burning worry until he or she returns home in the evening.  Because you never know when a bomb will get exploded in Colombo.  Son, did you watch in the TV the incident of the bomb explosion at the Town Hall.  My god ! how many people were killed. Our President was also injured.  Her right eye was injured.  She was very lucky to escape death.  But innocent people who were at that place died.  The same day a bomb exploded at Ja-Ela.  So many people were killed at that explosion too.  When we view that in the TV we feel sorry and has a fear of an uncertain future.  To tell you the truth living in Sri Lanka is now very fearful. No one knows when one will be killed.  Son, it is a tremendous relief that you are living there.  Do not think of returning to Sri Lanka.  Living in Sri Lanka in the future is very bleak.  Your uncle asked me to write to you and warn you not to think of coming back to Sri Lanka under these circumstances and that you should think of your safety and live in that country.  Son, recently, in Sri Lanka thugs armed with fire arms stormed the residences of Film Artists and renowned Singers and in some cases have burn down the houses and in other cases the household goods have been smashed and the singers have been unmercifully assaulted.  Also without a warning a curfew is introduced in the middle of the night and the army and the police knock on the doors and take people for questioning.  This is an opportunity for people to take revenge from enemies because they pose as police and army officers and kidnap their enemies.  Some of our neighbors were also taken for questioning.  They believe that tigers have entered Colombo and hence the curfew.  Son, I am writing all these details to give you the correct information about Sri Lanka. Please take into heart all these and do not think of coming back to Sri Lanka. You cannot come to Sri Lanka and live.  Therefore try to live happily in that country.  Don't you worry about us, we are all right.  Uncle, aunt and every one always reminds of you.  Please write to them.  So son, what other news. We have seen in the TV that there is going to be a huge athletic festival in your country.  It appears to be a colorful one.  Please write to us about it.  We see a lot about your country in the TV.  It is a very beautiful country.  Isn't it so?   So, that would do for the present.  I will write to you with further details again.  Until then wish my son the blessing of the all mighty god.”

7                     The applicant also relied on a testimonial from the Head Monk of Buddhist Vihara, Victoria, to the effect that the applicant was an active member of that organisation’s youth council and contributed to its activities.  In this context, the applicant pointed to the self-obvious fact that he could not continue those activities if he had to return to Sri Lanka. 

8                     In the next part of its reasons, the Tribunal reviewed certain country information about Sri Lanka, noting that violent conflict between the Sri Lankan government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (“LTTE”) has continued for the past sixteen years with serious human rights abuses on both sides.  The Tribunal further noted that “Tamil tiger rebels were apparently responsible for forty-eight of the fifty-eight murders in the period before the October 2000 election” and continued;

“The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has reported that innocent Tamil people, especially young Tamil men, have been inevitably caught up in the security authorities’ attempts to locate LTTE operatives and sometimes have to endure inconvenience, anxiety or humiliation as their bona fides are checked.  This context is fertile territory for local mischief-makers to make false reports against individuals with whom they have an issue .

The Department further advised that, at that time (the end of 1995), it had not ‘heard any plausible reports of Sinhalese suspected of sympathising with the LTTE’ although there may be examples of Sinhalese people participating in commercial arrangements with the LTTE (Safety of Tamils in Colombo and other matters - Cable CL38234: Country information report No 329195 15 December 1995 CX12970; Mifflar, Farrah ‘Who says there is no war in Colombo?’  The Sunday Times 9 November 1997 CX28573).  The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade advised in 1997 that it was 'utterly implausible' that the police would automatically regard a person as an associate of the LTTE simply for renting a room to a young Tamil from the north or east of the country (something not unlike providing driving 'services as the applicant claims to have done) and that it was 'not credible' that a Sinhalese persons would support the activities of the LTTE (Treatment of Tamils in the south Part 1: Country information report No 240197 28 May 1997 CX22852; Sinhalese LTTE supporters: Country information report No 377198 13 October 1998 CX32168).  More recent advice from the Department is that Sinhalese people are least likely to be suspected of involvement with the LTTE and that increased LTTE activity generally means increased security measures including more arrests and detentions, mainly of Tamils, under the Emergency Regulations and the Prevention of Terrorism Act although around 80 percent are released after identification checks (Pleadings before the UN Committee against Torture:  Country information report No 392199 11 October 1999 CX40936).

Human rights abuses committed by the LTTE include acts of terror and assassination of politicians and important and ordinary civilians, sometimes using suicide bombers.  It kills members of the security forces captured during battle.  The security forces are preoccupied with responding to the LTTE.  The actions taken to contain the insurgency are strong and determined and there are allegations that people suspected of belonging to or sympathising with the LTTE have been brutally treated by the authorities (1999 country reports on human rights practices:  Sri Lanka,  cited above, Section 1).

‘Following the blasting of a electricity transformer with a capacity of 53,000 kw in Ratnapura town on 20 June 1998, over 100 Tamil suspects were taken into custody by the Ratnapura police.  Among them were eight persons believed to be associated with the LTTE.  The police investigation seeks to unravel the connections between the series of blastings of electrical transformers in the Ratnapura area recently. The eight suspects were originally from places in the north and east and were employed in shops and business places in and around Ratnapura.”

9                     Reference was also made to an Amnesty International report on emergency regulations said to permit violations of human rights.  The Tribunal then noted;

“Amnesty is concerned about an increase in the use of torture and an increasing number of disappearances and deaths in custody which may be a result of the new regulations and that they may be used to try to cover-up illegal killings.  The target of the efforts criticised in the report appears to be people suspected of involvement with the LTTE which is suspected of bombing political rallies organised by the main parties.  The report drew attention to a number of cases where people had been arrested and detained, tortured and, in some cases, died in custody ... Like the emergency regulations, the Sri Lankan Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1979 provides wide powers to arrest and detain people suspected of involvement in certain types of offences without many of the safeguards which normally apply to the exercise of such powers.  Large numbers of people are arrested under the special legislation, mostly Tamils, and around 2000 are held under the provisions at any one time and the security forces often ignore those minimum safeguards which are included in the special legislation.”

10                  The Tribunal’s survey of country information concluded by noting the special place of Buddhism under the Sri Lankan Constitution and observing that freedom of worship was accorded to members of other faiths both under the Constitution and in practice. 

11                  Under the heading “Findings and Reasons” the Tribunal accepted that the applicant had been a hire care driver in Sri Lanka before coming to Australia.  After referring to the approach to be taken to the assessment of credibility, the Tribunal member said;

“I have considered the evidence before me in relation to the applicant’s claims and have concluded that I do not believe his claim that he has been suspected of associating with LTTE terrorists.”

12                  The Tribunal’s findings and reasons then continued;

“Independent information confirms that transformers were blown up in Ratnapura in June 1998 and that Sinhalese people can be caught up when there are security crackdowns and in this context it is possible that the applicant may have been questioned about the Tamils for whom he drove around the time when the transformer was blown up in Ratnapura in 1998.  However, and leaving aside some discrepancies in dates, I found his evidence about being taken to the police station on 1 August 1998, interrogated and assaulted, detained overnight and released only after his mother had paid a bond and then to have been assaulted and detained again overnight two days later (when he reported as required) very unconvincing.  On his own evidence, the applicant co-operated with the police by showing them where he dropped off the people who had engaged him to drive for them.  There was nothing in the applicant’s background which would have suggested a link to any matters political, he had driven for them on four days only and given them a cool drink when they came to his home.  His association with the people who hired him was in my view short-lived and superficial.  Independent information is that Sinhalese people are those least likely to be suspected of involvement with the LTTE:   this is not to say that no Sinhalese people are so suspected but, when considered against other advice that Sinhalese people do not support the LTTE, it does suggest to me that there have not been many.  I do not accept that merely driving a car for some Tamils would be sufficient to incite the intense and apparently sustained interest on the part of the police which the applicant claims occurred.  As stated above, such an association is not dissimilar to a Sinhalese person renting a room to a Tamil and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has described the suggestion that such an action would lead a person to be imputed with a LTTE profile as utterly implausible.  I do not accept that the applicant was subjected to the interrogation, detention and mistreatment he claims to have experienced at the hands of the police.

I have accepted that the applicant could have been questioned about the Tamils for who he drove.  In the context of Sri Lanka, 1 am not satisfied that being questioned about this at a time when there has been a terrorist attack by the LTTE is harm of a kind which can reasonably be regarded as persecution. In my view, the Sri Lankan authorities are entitled to make efforts to identify people who might have been involved in such attacks and I do not consider that merely being a person who is questioned in this context is evidence of persecution.  There is no credible evidence before me that the applicant suffered serious detriment or disadvantage as a result of this questioning or that he would experience such effects if he were to return to Sri Lanka in the reasonably foreseeable future and again drive for Tamils.”

13                  The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claims about threatening events which he said had occurred after he went into hiding and later left for Australia.  It said;

“I  found very unconvincing the applicant’s claim that the police went to his home and threatened that they would harm the applicant by dismantling his hands and legs, that they surrounded and searched his house twice about two months after he arrived in Australia (so in about October 1998) and that people in civilian clothes had gone to his home asking after him five months ago and again two months later (so in around July and September 2000).”

14                  Somewhat curiously, the Tribunal then observed;

“If these things happened, I do not believe that they occurred because of any suspected association with LTTE activists and there is no other evidence presented in the applicant’s claims which suggest [sic] that there might be any other reason for such attention.”

15                  The absence of evidence suggesting any other reason, apart from the one which the Tribunal expressly discounted, entails a conclusion that the postulated events did not happen.  That makes it difficult to understand why the Tribunal formulated the condition as it did, using as the apodosis the clause “If these things happened, ....”.  In any event, the Tribunal was able to go on, apparently independently of the sentence just quoted, to say;

“In reaching the conclusion that these claims are untrue, I have had regard to the information already relied on which indicates that Sinhalese people are the least likely to be suspected of associating with the LTTE as well as to the implausibility of the claim that the link between the applicant and the Tamils he drove for could lead to such sustained interest for now more than two years.  As well, the manner in which he gave evidence about what has happened since his departure from the country suggested strongly to me that he was making it up as he went along.”

16                  The Tribunal also rejected the applicant’s resort to a false passport as evidencing a genuine fear of the authorities, observing that the expedient had been adopted to avoid the delay and inconvenience consequent upon an application for an Australian visa, as “such a visa was conveniently in the passport he used to come here.”

17                  The final observation of the Tribunal relevant to the present application was in these terms;

“The LTTE’s attacks on elements of Sri Lanka’s infrastructure are well known as is the sensitivity of the authorities to LTTE activity and their determination to suppress the LTTE.  I consider that the applicant has concocted a story around these facts for the purpose of obtaining the migration outcome he desires.  I find that the applicant has not been suspected of having connections to the LTTE and am not satisfied that he would be so suspected if he were to return to Sri Lanka.  It follows that I do not consider that there is a real chance that he would face persecution if he were to return there and that I find that his fear is not well-founded.”

18                  Counsel for the applicant contended that the question which the Tribunal had to decide was whether the Sri Lankan authorities had imputed to the applicant a political opinion of support for LTTE sympathisers implicated in the bombings.  That required, it was submitted, an anterior finding of whether the applicant’s passengers had been the bombers or had been suspected of being so.  The reasoning at the conclusion of the paragraph quoted at [12] above was criticised as lacking an express or implied finding of “who the Tamil youths that he drove were and what was, if any, their involvement with the explosions.”  A finding as to those matters was said to be crucial because it was not the applicant’s case that he had been caught up in a “generalised crackdown” by the security forces or that he merely had a commercial relationship with some Tamils. 

19                  In this context, Counsel for the applicant referred to Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 180 ALR 1 where, in relation to s 430 of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act”), McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ observed, at 17;

“The provision entitles a court to infer that any matter not mentioned in the s 430 statement was not considered by the Tribunal to be material. [Repatriation Commission v O'Brien(1985) 155 CLR 422 at 446 per Brennan J; Sullivan v Department of Transport(1978) 20 ALR 323 at 348-349 per Deane J, 353 per Fisher J; cf Fleming v The Queen(1998) 197 CLR 250 at 262‑263 [28]‑[29].]  This may reveal some basis for judicial review by the Federal Court under Pt 8 of the Act, or by this Court in proceedings brought under s 75(v) of the Constitution. For example, it may reveal that the Tribunal made some error of law of the kind mentioned in s 476(1)(e) of the Act, such as incorrectly applying the law to the facts found by the Tribunal. It may reveal jurisdictional error. [Craig v South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 at 179.]  The Tribunal's identification of what it considered to be the material questions of fact may demonstrate that it took into account some irrelevant consideration or did not take into account some relevant consideration.  [Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24.]^” (original emphasis)

20                  However, I do not consider that the Tribunal’s failure to make a finding as to whether the three Tamil passengers had been implicated, or were still suspected of having been implicated, in the bombings reflected a mistaken belief that those matters were not relevant to the applicant’s claim.  Rather, it reflected the applicant’s own uncertainty as to what had happened to his Tamil passengers and whether they had been convicted or were still suspected of complicity in the bombings.  In his written statement in support of his application, the applicant said of the passengers that, after the first week of July 1998, they had “disappeared as if lost in the thin air.”  There was, accordingly, as Counsel accepted in the course of discussion during the hearing, a range of assumptions which the Tribunal could have made about how the authorities regarded the applicant’s passengers.  At one extreme, the passengers could have been completely exonerated of implication in any bombing.  At the other extreme, the one most favourable to the applicant, the passengers may have been convicted or still have been suspected of having perpetrated the blowing up of an electrical installation.

21                  In my view, on a fair reading of the Tribunal’s reasons as a whole, it did assume in the applicant’s favour that his passengers had been involved, or suspected of involvement, in blowing up a transformer at Ratnapura.  It correctly characterised his claim as being “that he has been suspected of association with LTTE terrorists.”  It also accepted, in the passage quoted in the second paragraph of the extract set out at [12] above, that the applicant had been questioned about the Tamils for whom he drove.

22                  A question which the Tribunal had to answer on the way to resolving the ultimate question of whether the applicant were he to return to Sri Lanka would have a well-founded fear of persecution for the reason of imputed political opinion, was whether the authorities regarded him as having intentionally participated with his Tamil passengers in blowing up an electrical installation.  For reasons which it explained, the Tribunal answered that question adversely to the applicant.

23                  One of the reasons which the Tribunal gave for answering the question in that way was that merely driving for alleged Tamil terrorists would be regarded by the authorities as “not dissimilar to a Sinhalese person renting a room to a Tamil.”  The use of DFAT information in relation to that analogy has been criticised by Finkelstein J in Gamaethige v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 565 (21 May 2001) where his Honour said, at 43;

“It is difficult to understand why the tribunal came to the conclusion that this “evidence” directly contradicted that given by Mr Gamaethige.  A fair reading of the “evidence” shows that it has either no bearing, or only a marginal bearing, on Mr Gamaethige’s claim.  The questions are designed to elicit information about the possible effect of a “householder” renting a room to a young Tamil.  Mr Gamaethige, Babu and Ravi did not merely stand in relation of landlord to tenants.  Although Babu and Ravi paid rent for their room, it is likely that the rent was paid to Mr Gamaethige’s parents.  Further, Babu and Ravi were friends of Mr Gamaethige; as he put it, they were “very close friends”.  The Country Information Service was not asked to provide information about how the authorities would regard a Sinhalese who was a close friend of Tamil youths.  The statement that “it is utterly implausible for the police to automatically impute … a householder with LTTE profile, particularly if they were Sinhalese,” must be understood in the context of the question to which this statement is in answer – that question enquires after the position of a Sinhalese whose only association with Tamils is as landlord.”

24                  In the present case, the only suggestion was that the Tamil passengers had become friendly or “new friends” with the applicant but they were never claimed to have been “very close friends”.  The applicant’s case was that he had been an employed hire car driver who had driven the passengers in accordance with their directions and his only social contact with them had been when they called unannounced at his home and he gave them a cool drink.  In those circumstances, it was open to the Tribunal to find, as it did, that the connection between the applicant and the passengers was not sufficiently close for the authorities to impute to him sympathy with the passengers’ assumed terrorist activities.  In other words, it was open to the Tribunal to make the finding it did that the applicant’s association with the passengers had been “short-lived and superficial” and would have been so regarded by the Sri Lankan authorities.

25                  Other reasons which the Tribunal gave for declining to find that the Sri Lankan security forces imputed to the applicant views sympathetic to the presumptive Tamil terrorists were its disbelief of his claim to have been detained and violently interrogated by the police, his Sinhalese ethnicity and the co-operation which, on his own account, he accorded the police when they were pursuing their investigations.  As well, the Tribunal pointed to the absence, again on the applicant’s own account, of any link with Tamil political activity before he fortuitously became caught up with the passengers and its rejection of the applicant’s claims of subsequent harassment.

26                  Whether the Sri Lankan authorities ever imputed, and still impute, to the applicant complicity in the blowing up of an electrical installation was a question fact for the Tribunal.  It may be that it could have resolved in a more orderly or logical fashion the questions which arose on the way to deciding that issue.  However, it is not for this Court to castigate minutely on review the reasoning of a specialist body like the Tribunal.  As was pointed out in the joint judgment of the High Court in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259, at 271;

“…a Full Court of the Federal Court (Neaves, French and Cooper JJ) collected authorities for various propositions as to the practical restraints on judicial review. It was said that a court should not be “concerned with looseness in the language … nor with unhappy phrasing” of the reasons of an administrative decision-maker. [Pozzolanic (1993) 43 FCR 280 at 287]  The court continued [Pozzolanic (1993) 43 FCR 280 at 287] :

“The reasons for the decision under review are not to be construed minutely and finely with an eye keenly attuned to the perception of error.”

These propositions are well settled. They recognise the reality that the reasons of an administrative decision-maker are meant to inform and not to be scrutinised upon over-zealous judicial review by seeking to discern whether some inadequacy may be gleaned from the way in which the reasons are expressed. [See McAuliffe v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1992) 28 ALD 609 at 616.]  In the present context, any court reviewing a decision upon refugee status must beware of turning a review of the reasons of the decision-maker upon proper principles into a reconsideration of the merits of the decision.”

27                  I am not persuaded that the Tribunal identified a wrong issue, asked itself the wrong question or ignored relevant material or relied on irrelevant material so that it could be said, as indicated in the joint judgment in Yusuf (supra) at 22, that it had no authority or “jurisdiction” to make the decision it did.  Mere logical flaws or circularity in posing and answering the right question, or in resolving some subsidiary question perceived to arise on the way to answering that question, will not enliven the jurisdiction of this Court to set aside  on review a decision of the Tribunal.  Despite the strictures passed by Finkelstein J on the reasoning of the Tribunal in Gamaethige (supra), the other members of the Full Court in that case dismissed the appeal relying on the principle enunciated by another Full Court of this Court in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Epeabaka (1998) 84 FCR 411, that want of logic in arriving at a decision is not a reviewable error of law.  Since Gamaethige was decided, Epeabaka has been considered by the High Court in relation to alleged ostensible bias on the part of the Tribunal, sub nom Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs;  Ex parte Epeabaka (2001) 179 ALR 296, but no doubt was expressed about the reasoning of the Full Court of this Court.  Moreover, the limitations on the recourse available to applicants for review under the Act to errors committed by the Tribunal on the way to its ultimate decision have been succinctly indicated by the High Court in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Thiyagarajah (2000) 199 CLR 343, where Gleeson CJ, McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ observed, at 330;

“The error of law which will attract review must be more than one found in a step taken at some stage in the decision-making process.  The involvement of which s 476(1)(e) speaks postulates an error which finds a necessary consequence in the ultimate decision to affirm the refusal of the grant of a protection visa [Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 at 353.”

Conclusion

28                  For the reasons which I have endeavoured to explain, I have been unable to conclude that the limited attack which the applicant has mounted on its decision revealed that the Tribunal committed any reviewable error of law.  Accordingly, the application must be dismissed with costs.

Associate:

Dated:              21 August 2002