The Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's refusal of a protection visa. On Ground 1, the Court held that the psychologist's report provided by the applicant to the Tribunal fell within the s 424A(3)(b) exception and that the Tribunal's inconsistency findings regarding the applicant's relationship with her brother-in-law were within the range of rational outcomes, applying Djokovic and SZMDS. On Ground 2, the Court held that the Tribunal's inference that the ex-husband would cooperate with Indian divorce proceedings, based on his cooperation with Australian proceedings, was a factual finding not reviewable as merits. On Ground 3, the Court held the Tribunal had given proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the risk of harm to women in India, reading the decision as a whole including its engagement with DFAT country information and the applicant's individual circumstances as a single woman.
The full text is available to signed-in members.