The Court held that where the IAA rejects new information under s 473DD as not credible and not satisfying the exceptional circumstances threshold, there is no further obligation to consider new protection claims that might emerge from that rejected information. The Court also held that the IAA's credibility findings based on identified inconsistencies in the applicant's statements and an unexplained three-year gap in claimed authority interest were rational and logical, and did not constitute legal unreasonableness or confirmatory bias of the kind identified in BEL16 and DTN16.
The full text is available to signed-in members.