The Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's affirmation of a protection visa refusal for a Malaysian citizen who claimed fear of harm from investors in a 'get rich quick scheme'. On the interpretation issue, the Court held that in the absence of a transcript, audio recording, or other reliable record of the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal's decision itself constitutes the best evidence of what occurred, and bare assertions of interpreter error are insufficient to establish jurisdictional error. On the 'unwarranted assumptions' ground, the Court applied BOH17 and Sabharwal, treating the ground as one of legal unreasonableness, and found the Tribunal's inferences — including that the ex-husband's voluntary return to Malaysia undermined the claimed fear of harm — were reasonably open on the evidence and not illogical, irrational, or legally unreasonable.
The full text is available to signed-in members.