1An unarticulated claim of intention to participate in future anti-government protests in a home country was not raised 'squarely' on the material before the Tribunal where the applicant had never protested in that country, had ceased protesting in Australia years earlier, and never expressed any future intention to protest — the claim was an entirely different basis to that actually advanced.
2The inquisitorial nature of the Tribunal does not oblige it to construct or strengthen an applicant's case; the applicant bears the responsibility of advancing whatever evidence or arguments she wishes, and the Tribunal's failure to ask questions about a claim never made does not constitute a denial of procedural fairness.
3Where a protection visa applicant had assistance completing the application form and stated the claims were not expressed exactly as she had said, close syntactical analysis of the form's language is not appropriate; the substance of the claims as actually articulated governs the Tribunal's obligations.
