The Court dismissed all seven grounds of judicial review of a Tribunal decision refusing a protection visa. The Court confirmed that adverse credibility findings based on inconsistencies between written and oral evidence were factual determinations open to the Tribunal, that there was no obligation to assess cumulative harm where each individual claim had been rejected on its merits, and that the Tribunal was not required to conduct a separate complementary protection assessment under s 36(2)(aa) where the 'real risk' threshold is the same as the 'real chance' test under s 36(2)(a) and the same factual findings applied to both.
The full text is available to signed-in members.