A tribunal that makes strong adverse credibility findings based on conflicting evidence about a readily verifiable factual matter, without first making obvious inquiries or raising the issue with an unrepresented applicant, may act in a legally unreasonable manner amounting to jurisdictional error. The requirement of legal reasonableness does not prescribe a single course of action but may be satisfied by various steps including making inquiries, alerting the applicant to the conflict, or declining to draw adverse inferences from inconclusive evidence. The assessment of unreasonableness is made from the Tribunal's perspective at the time, not in hindsight.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 3 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.