The Court dismissed the judicial review application, holding that the Immigration Assessment Authority did not fail to consider a relevant consideration when it did not engage with the timing of the applicant's marriage relative to his departure from Sri Lanka, the cost of his journey, or the length of time spent outside Sri Lanka, because these matters were not squarely raised as claims and did not clearly arise from the materials as relevant to credibility. The Court further held that the Authority's adverse credibility findings based on inconsistencies across three interviews were not illogical, irrational or unreasonable, even though the applicant's evidence could possibly have been true, as the mere possibility of truth does not render rejection of evidence unreasonable.
The full text is available to signed-in members.