SZNWK v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2010] FMCA 83 (9 March 2010)

Last Updated: 9 March 2010

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZNWK v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2010] FMCA 83

MIGRATION – Persecution – review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – visa – protection visa – refusal – specific finding on a claim unnecessary because it was subsumed in findings of greater generality – denial of natural justice not proved – error of fact by Tribunal without jurisdictional implications does not amount to error of law – failure to provide reasons in accordance with s.430 of the Migration Act 1958 does not, without more, amount to jurisdictional error.

Migration Act 1958, ss.424AA, 424A, 425, 474

Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476 Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2003) 75 ALD 630 Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510 Applicant S1507/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 290 SZNOM v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 1244

Applicant:

SZNWK

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 2113 of 2009

Judgment of:

Cameron FM

Hearing date:

27 January 2010

Date of Last Submission:

27 January 2010

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

9 March 2010

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondents:

DLA Phillips Fox

ORDERS

(1) The application be dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

SYG 2113 of 2009

SZNWK

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The applicant is a citizen of India and a Muslim. He claims that in April 2007 a fellow villager (who had been excommunicated for unacceptable activities) was refused permission to bury his stillborn child in the burial ground of the local mosque. The applicant claims that he played a significant role in this decision and was subsequently targeted by that other villager and his supporters. The applicant claims that these people are seeking revenge and will kill him if he returns to India.
2. The applicant claims to fear persecution in India because of his involvement in the decision to refuse the burial and because of his difference with the villager and his brother concerning how prayers should be conducted at his mosque.
3. After his arrival in Australia on 31 December 2008, the applicant lodged an application for a protection visa. This was refused by a delegate of the first respondent (“Minister”) on 30 March 2009. The applicant then applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) for a review of that departmental decision. The applicant was unsuccessful before the Tribunal and has applied to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.
4. In these judicial review proceedings the Court cannot rehear the applicant’s application for a visa. Its task is to determine whether the Tribunal’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error as that is the only basis upon which it can be set aside: s.474 Migration Act 1958 (“Act”); Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476.
5. For the reasons which follow, the application will be dismissed.

Background facts

6. The facts alleged in support of the applicant’s claim for a protection visa are set out on pages 4 – 17 of the Tribunal’s decision (Court Book (“CB”) pages 170 – 183) and are summarised below.

The department

7. The following claims were made by the applicant in a statement provided with his protection visa application and at a subsequent departmental interview on 17 March 2009:
   1. he was born in the village of Vadakarai where he used to be a member of the local Jamath. The Jamath is a mosque. It is also a reference to Muslim people generally (everyone in his village is Muslim and hence a member of Jamath) and, in addition, is a term used to describe those within the Jamath who are selected as Jamath committee members or leaders;
   2. the ten member Jamath committee in Vadakarai ran the mosque and looked after the condition of the village. He became a committee member in 1998 at the age of twenty;
   100. in 1998 he left India and travelled to Thailand where he worked and lived continuously for ten years before coming to Australia. He returned to India seven or eight times during this period;
   4. in April 2007 he returned to India to assist his wife who was in the final stages of pregnancy. Whilst there, the wife of a former Jamath member (“Mr Farouk”) gave birth to a stillborn child. The Vadakarai Jamath refused Mr Farouk permission to bury his child in the mosque burial ground as he had been excommunicated and banished from the village for “unacceptable activities”;
   5. Mr Farouk’s brother, Mr Munsoor, asked the applicant to speak to the other Jamath members on Mr Farouk’s behalf. Mr Munsoor was the local leader of the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munetra Kallagam (“TMMK”) which was supported by the DMK, the ruling party. The applicant on the other hand, was a member of the AIADMK, an opposing party, having been a member since 1998. When the applicant refused Mr Munsoor’s request, the latter became angry and said that he would take revenge;
   6. later that same day, Mr Farouk and Mr Munsoor gathered supporters from the neighbouring village and started a riot in Vadakarai. Members of the TMMK dragged the applicant out of his home and assaulted him. They said that the applicant was the cause of the child not being allowed to be buried. They said that they would kill him. The applicant did not report this assault to the police;
   7. at one point, Mr Farouk and his DMK supporters went to the mosque. They were about to clash with the AIADMK when the police intervened. The police told the Jamath that Mr Farouk should be granted permission to bury his child and, under their supervision, the child was buried at the mosque burial ground the following day;
   8. frightened and afraid for his life, the applicant left India and travelled to Bangkok immediately after the birth of his child;
   9. meanwhile, Mr Munsoor and Mr Farouk continued to search for him. They (and the DMK) eventually discovered that he was working in Thailand with a Mohamed Rafiq, who was also from Vadakarai. They contacted Mr Rafiq and told him that if he did not get the applicant out of Thailand he (Mr Rafiq) and his family would be murdered. As a result, Mr Rafiq told the applicant to leave the business;
   10. the applicant returned to India in December 2008. However, Mr Rafiq had informed the DMK and the applicant was attacked on his return by about ten thugs. Members of his own party, the AIADMK, were having a function nearby and managed to assist him;
   11. on 16 December 2008 (presumably in a separate incident) the applicant was attacked by Mr Munsoor, Mr Farouk and members of other coalition parties who had all come together to attack him. He did not report this incident to the police;
   50. he encountered other problems at this time. When he returned to his village, Hindus from a neighbouring village (who belonged to the RSS and BJP) came to Vadakarai and occupied the Jamath, terrorising Muslims in the area. The applicant, along with about ten others, removed them and then went to their village and terrorised them in turn. When the BJP learned of this they came to the applicant’s house to attack him but he was not at home. The BJP told the applicant’s brother that they would murder the applicant; and
   13. he cannot move to another part of Tamil Nadu because Mr Munsoor and Mr Farouk have contacts in every branch of the TMMK and they are still angry that he did not negotiate with the mosque about the burial. Also, he is opposed to their political beliefs.

The Tribunal

8. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 4 June 2009 and on
   23 July 2009. On the first hearing date he made the following claims:
   1. Mr Farouk’s child died on 19 April 2007. The burial was requested on the same day and a meeting of Jamath members was convened and attended by six or seven hundred members. At that meeting the applicant was selected as a committee member to replace someone who was absent. He spoke up and said that Mr Farouk and Mr Munsoor should not be permitted to bury the child at the mosque because they had created many disturbances at the Jamath;
   2. a majority of the attending members opposed the burial request. The Jamath leader, a Mohamed Sultan, and the committee then met separately to make a final decision (although they would not have made a decision contrary to the wishes of the larger group);
   100. the applicant was targeted by the brothers because he had spoken up during the meeting and because the brothers had previously regarded him as a friend. He had also opposed them on many other issues;
   4. he left India on 15 or 16 May 2007, some three weeks after the incident concerning Mr Farouk’s child. He had been in hiding in the intervening period;
   5. when he returned to India in December 2007 to see his wife he was attacked. He moved his family to another location and then returned to Thailand where he obtained passports for his family. They joined him in Thailand in June or July 2008;
   6. he was dismissed by Mr Rafiq in November 2008 and decided at that point that he would come to Australia. However, he had to return to India first in order to find a safe place for his wife (he could not bring her to Australia because he had expenses and she was not well). The applicant and his family arrived in India on 16 December 2008. They were attacked by Mr Munsoor, Mr Farouk and their supporters while en route to Vadakarai. However, their attackers ran away when they saw a vehicle approaching and assumed (incorrectly) that it contained the applicant’s supporters;
   7. on 20 December 2008, in retaliation against a group of Hindus who had taken over property belonging to the Vadakarai mosque, the applicant and about ten others damaged a building which belonged to the Hindu community of a neighbouring village. The applicant was recognised as one of the attackers because people from his village and those from the Hindu village often went to the same place to “take tea”. Later, these people came to the applicant’s house and threatened to kill him;
   8. he did not report these incidents to the police as the police usually support the controlling party and do not treat ordinary people well. Also, in 1998 he was beaten by the police and has been frightened of them ever since; and
   9. he cannot relocate within India because he has no education beyond the age of 18 and he cannot speak Hindi or English. Also, those who threatened him have connections with the Congress Party and the DMK and have links all over the country. They are still looking for him even now.
9. The applicant had earlier provided to the Minister’s department a newspaper article titled “Case against 48 People Regarding Burial of Baby near Mayiladuthurai”, dated 22 April 2007, which he claimed described the incident arising from the Jamath’s refusal to allow the burial of Mr Farouk’s child. When the Tribunal indicated to the applicant that the article referred to the leader of the Jamath as a Mr Samsudeen, not a Mohamed Sultan, the applicant claimed that:
   1. Mr Samsudeen was the leader of the Jamath in the neighbouring village, Arangakudi;
   2. Mr Farouk approached the Arangakudi Jamath after the Vadakarai Jamath refused his request;
   100. when the Arangakudi Jamath also refused to allow the burial, there was a clash and the police were forced to intervene. The child was eventually buried in Arangakudi; and
   4. Arangakudi and Vadakarai, being so close together, originally had only one Jamath. However, about thirty years ago two separate Jamaths were established. Even so, there was a lot of interchange between the Jamaths.
10. At the hearing before the Tribunal on the second occasion the applicant provided an additional article titled “Opposition to bury a dead baby, Vadakarai 21 April 2007”. When the Tribunal indicated to the applicant that the article again referred to problems with the Jamath in the neighbouring village, the applicant claimed that:
    1. the neighbouring village (identified in the newspaper article as Mayiladuthurai) and Vadakarai are the same village but the Jamaths are divided. Mr Farouk had been expelled from both Jamaths;
    2. there were two clashes; one involving the Vadakarai Jamath and the other involving the Mayiladuthurai Jamath. He did not previously mention the problems with the two Jamaths because he only wrote about his own problems; and
    100. the Mayiladuthurai Jamath asked the Vadakarai Jamath for assistance and the applicant was therefore involved although nothing happened to him when he went to help the neighbouring Jamath.

The Tribunal’s decision and reasons

11. After discussing the claims made by the applicant and the evidence before it, the Tribunal found that it was not satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951, amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1967 (“Convention”). The Tribunal’s decision was based on the following findings and reasons:
    1. the Tribunal accepted that the Mayiladuthurai Jamath led by Samsudeen refused to allow the burial of Mr Farouk’s stillborn child and that as a result there was a clash between the Mayiladuthurai Jamath and TMMK officials. However, the Tribunal did not accept that there were two clashes in two villages, i.e. that there was also a clash in the applicant’s village between Mr Farouk and the Vadakarai Jamath led by Mohamad Sultan. In this connection, the Tribunal noted that:
       1. the newspaper articles were detailed and specific. Had there been two separate incidents in two villages as claimed by the applicant, this would have been reported in the articles;
       2. the applicant made no reference in his statement or at his interview with the department about two Jamaths refusing to allow the burial. He only offered this explanation when the Tribunal put to him that the Jamath leader named in the first article (Samsudeen) was a different person to the Jamath leader named by the applicant (Mohamad Sultan). The Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s explanation that he had only written about his own problems and it formed the view that he had fabricated this evidence in response to the inconsistency which was pointed out by the Tribunal; and
       3. it had serious doubts that all of the events which the applicant claimed occurred could have occurred within a day of the child’s death;
    2. even accepting that the Vadakarai Jamath had refused to allow the burial of Mr Farouk’s child, the Tribunal did not find credible the applicant’s claim that he played a key role in that decision, noting that:
       1. he had not been a consistent resident in Vadakarai for ten years and only returned a week before the death of Mr Farouk’s child. In the circumstances, it was not credible that out of the six or seven hundred participants at the meeting the applicant would have been asked by the Jamath to stand in for an absent committee member or to play any special role at the meeting;
       2. not being a committee member, the applicant would have been one of hundreds who made the decision to not allow Mr Farouk to bury his child and the Tribunal did not accept that his role or influence was so significant that his assistance would have been sought by Mr Farouk and Mr Munsoor or that he would have been targeted by them;
       3. the Tribunal was of the view that if the applicant had had a significant role in the Jamath he would have been in communication with other Jamath members and would know if others had been similarly targeted but he did not know if they had been. Also, it did not seem to the Tribunal to be credible that the applicant, instead of seeking support from fellow Jamath members, would immediately go into hiding and would not know if others had been targeted; and
       4. the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had a personal relationship with Mr Farouk and Mr Munsoor such that they would be motivated to seek his assistance or then target him for revenge, given the applicant’s evidence that they were from an opposing political party, that he was opposed to their practices in the mosque and that he did not know their full names.
    100. consequently, the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was threatened or assaulted by Mr Farouk or Mr Munsoor or by TMMK or DMK supporters;
    4. given the applicant’s claim that he was targeted because of the role he played in the Jamath’s refusal to allow the burial of Mr Farouk’s child, the Tribunal did not accept that he was targeted because of his political affiliations;
    5. the first newspaper article provided by the applicant indicated that as a result of the clash between the Jamath and supporters of Mr Farouk, the police filed cases against forty-eight people including officials of the TMMK. The Tribunal found that the actions of the Indian police constituted a serious effort on their part to make the perpetrators accountable for their actions and, in light of this, did not accept that the applicant would have been denied protection by the police had he made a complaint about being assaulted. The fact that the applicant did not make a complaint also caused the Tribunal to doubt the veracity of his claims;
    6. the Tribunal did not accept that Mr Farouk and Mr Munsoor pressured Mr Rafiq to terminate the applicant’s employment in November 2008 as it did not consider credible the applicant’s claim that it took Mr Farouk and Mr Munsoor, two fellow villagers, eighteen months to ascertain the name of the applicant’s employer, who was also from the same village and who had employed the applicant for ten years;
    7. the Tribunal also had serious doubts that Mr Farouk and Mr Munsoor would have persisted in making threats against the applicant eighteen months after the burial incident, particularly given the evidence that Mr Farouk’s child was eventually buried in the mosque and thus his objective had been achieved;
    8. the Tribunal did not accept that in December 2008 the applicant engaged in a raid on a neighbouring village or that he was targeted by the RSS and the BJP as a result. The Tribunal did not consider it credible that the applicant would engage in such risky behaviour in circumstances where he was apparently fearful of attack, had already been attacked on his arrival and had returned to India for the purpose of organising a safe residence for his family;
    9. even if he had engaged in such a raid, the Tribunal did not consider it credible that the applicant would have been personally identified given that:
       1. he had been living in Thailand for ten years and prior to December 2008 had not been back in India since December 2007;
       2. his claim that he was in hiding in April and December 2007 was not consistent with his claim that he was drinking tea at a popular tea house (and was therefore recognised); and
       3. he claimed that his village had a population of 3000 and that all were Muslim and members of the Jamath. The Tribunal was therefore of the view that any number of people in the applicant’s village might have wanted to retaliate against Hindus damaging or occupying Jamath property and thus it was not plausible that the applicant was easily identified by Hindu residents of the neighbouring village as having been party to the raid;
    10. consequently, the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had a political profile which would result in him being of adverse interest to the DMK, the TMMK, the Congress Party, the BJP or the RSS.

Proceedings in this Court

12. The grounds of the application commencing these proceedings were pleaded as follows:
    • (1) The Second Respondent erred in law as it failed to take into consideration relevant issues in this case.
    • (2) The Applicant was not accorded natural justice.
13. In his written outline of arguments the applicant also submitted that the Tribunal:
    1. made factual errors in its findings; and
    2. erred in law by not providing reasons for its disbelief of his claims.

Failure to consider claim

14. The principal claim made by the applicant was that he feared persecution because of his involvement in his mosque’s decision to refuse Mr Farouk permission to bury his stillborn child at that mosque. The summary of the applicant’s claims and the Tribunal’s consideration of those claims set out above at [6]-[11] demonstrates that this aspect of the allegation has no substance. It is apparent that the Tribunal gave detailed consideration to the applicant’s claims in this connection. To that extent, this allegation is not made out.
15. The applicant also alleged during the course of his Tribunal hearing on 4 June 2009 that in addition to his opposition to the burial, he feared Messrs Munsoor and Farouk because he rejected their views regarding the way prayers should be conducted. It appears that this allegation formed part of the factual background for the claimed refusal to permit the burial of Mr Farouk’s child in that it appears that Mr Farouk was associated with “more progressive Muslims” and had “created many disturbances at the Jamath” (para.42, CB 175). The applicant stated that the brothers made it political, fearing that he would be a hindrance to the progress of the TMMK.
16. In para.99 of its decision the Tribunal expressly rejected the proposition that the applicant had a political profile which would result in him being of adverse interest to organisations including the DMK and the TMMK. This conclusion deals with the applicant’s claim to fear persecution because Messrs Farouk and Munsoor would or did politicise the applicant’s rejection of their views regarding the way prayers ought to be conducted.
17. Even if it were to be considered that the Tribunal did not expressly deal with this claimed fear the issue was nevertheless disposed of. As was said in Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2003) 75 ALD 630:
    • The inference that the tribunal has failed to consider an issue may be drawn from its failure to expressly deal with that issue in its reasons. But that is an inference not too readily to be drawn where the reasons are otherwise comprehensive and the issue has at least been identified at some point. It may be that it is unnecessary to make a finding on a particular matter because it is subsumed in findings of greater generality or because there is a factual premise upon which a contention rests which has been rejected. (at 641 [47])
18. That is the case here. The applicant’s claim to fear Messrs Farouk and Munsoor were subject to a comprehensive rejection by the Tribunal in para.92 of its decision where it said that it did not accept that he was threatened or assaulted by those men or by TMMK or DMK supporters. This conclusion, although not specifically referring to the applicant’s claim to fear harm from these men as a result of their religious differences, necessarily incorporates and deals with it.
19. The issue was also disposed of by the Tribunal’s conclusion that it was not satisfied that the Indian police failed to provide him with protection for a Convention reason and by its rejection of the idea that the police would not have taken any action against those who assaulted the applicant if they were TMMK members (para.93).
20. Further, the Tribunal did not accept that Messrs Farouk and Munsoor pressured the applicant’s employer to terminate his employment, finding that that claim was not credible.
21. In short, the applicant’s claim to fear Messrs Farouk and Munsoor by reason of his disagreement with their views on religious practices was subsumed by the Tribunal’s findings concerning the absence of threats to and assaults on the applicant by Messrs Farouk and Munsoor and those associated with them, by the availability of police protection and by the Tribunal’s disbelief of the applicant’s allegation that Messrs Farouk and Munsoor sought to put pressure on the applicant through the medium of his employer.

The applicant was not accorded natural justice

22. The allegation that the applicant was not accorded natural justice was particularised in the following terms:
    • All the relevant adverse material which constituted part or whole of the case was not put to the applicant for his comment.

The applicant has not identified what material was not put to him.

23. As the allegation is particularised, it appears to allege a breach of s.424A of the Act. Section 424A(1) relevantly provides:
    • 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal
    • (1) Subject to subsections (2A) and (3), the Tribunal must:
      • (a) give to the applicant, in the way that the Tribunal considers appropriate in the circumstances, clear particulars of any information that the Tribunal considers would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review; ...
    • ...
    • (3) This section does not apply to information:
      • (a) that is not specifically about the applicant or another person and is just about a class of persons of which the applicant or other person is a member; or
      • (b) that the applicant gave for the purpose of the application for review; or
      • (ba) that the applicant gave during the process that led to the decision that is under review, other than such information that was provided orally by the applicant to the Department; or
      • (c) that is non-disclosable information.
24. In this case, the Tribunal had no obligations under s.424A as all the information upon which it based its decision was either information which the applicant had provided to the Minister’s department in writing, was information which the applicant provided to the Tribunal for the purposes of its review or was independent country information to which the Tribunal had access: s.424A(3).
25. In any event, in purported conformity with s.424AA, which permits the Tribunal to give oral notification of the matters required to be advised to an applicant pursuant to s.424A, the Tribunal did put a number of matters to the applicant. Indeed, that was the entire purpose of the second Tribunal hearing which took place on 23 July 2009. There, the Tribunal put to the applicant various concerns it had regarding the credibility of his evidence and inconsistencies between that evidence and newspaper articles which he had provided to the Tribunal. Except to the extent that this course was required by s.425 of the Act, the Tribunal was not, on this occasion, obliged to take this step.
26. Should the particulars of the second allegation in the application be understood to be a reference to a supposed breach of s.425, such an allegation is not made out. Section 425(1) relevantly provides:
    • 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear
      • (1) The Tribunal must invite the applicant to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review.
27. The issues concerning the Tribunal, and which were the basis for it listing a second hearing, were its concerns regarding when Mr Farouk’s child died, which Jamath was involved in the dispute regarding the child’s burial, queries concerning the credibility of the applicant’s claim to be singled out amongst hundreds of persons involved in the decision to deny the child burial, issues concerning police protection and the applicant’s membership of the Jamath committee. Additionally, the Tribunal explained to the applicant that there was information before it which might cause it to decide that his claims were not credible and which would lead to the refusal of his review application.
28. Consequently, to the extent that the Tribunal had any obligations pursuant to s.425(1) to put to the applicant issues arising in connection with the review, it did so at the hearing on 23 July 2009.

Error of fact

29. This allegation appears to be founded on the Tribunal’s expressed understanding that the applicant claimed to be a member of a political party called the ADMK and also a party called the AIADMK. It should first be noted that there does not appear to have been an error on the Tribunal’s part. Its reference in para.20 of its decision record to the applicant being a member of the ADMK is, in essence, a quotation of what the applicant said in the statement he submitted with his protection visa application. The reference to the AIADMK arises from the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal on the first occasion. No evidence was put before the Court by the applicant which demonstrated that the Tribunal’s record of that hearing was inaccurate. The applicant’s allegation that there was some factual error is misconceived. The Tribunal recounted the applicant’s allegations and went on to say in its “Findings & Reasons” that the applicant claimed to have been a member of the AIADMK, clearly preferring to rely on the evidence given at its hearing rather than the allegation contained in the statement submitted with the visa application.
30. However, even were the Tribunal’s statement to have been inaccurate, this would not amount to jurisdictional error justifying the setting aside of its decision. A mere error of fact on the Tribunal’s part, which has no jurisdictional implications, such as would be the case here, does not amount to an error of law: Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia [1999] HCA 14; (1999) 197 CLR 510 per Gummow and Hayne JJ at 560 [137] and 579-580 [195].

Failure to provide reasons

31. The applicant alleges that the Tribunal erred because it did not provide reasons for its disbelief of the applicant’s version of events. Factually, this allegation must fail as the Tribunal’s decision record discloses with considerable clarity the basis for its disbelief of those allegations. However, even if it had not, the mere failure of the Tribunal to comply with its obligations under s.430 would not, without more, amount to jurisdictional error: Applicant S1507/2003 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 290; SZNOM v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 1244.

Conclusion

32. For these reasons, jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal has not been demonstrated.
33. Consequently, the application will be dismissed.

I certify that the preceding thirty-three (33) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Cameron FM

Associate:

Date: 9 March 2010