The Court dismissed a judicial review application challenging a Tribunal decision refusing a protection visa, holding that the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were supported by probative evidence and were open to a rational decision-maker. The Court applied SZMDS to confirm that where significant inconsistencies between written claims and oral evidence were identified and put to the applicant at hearing, and the Tribunal methodically addressed each claim with adequate reasons, the decision could not be characterised as illogical, irrational or unreasonable. The inadequacy of the applicant's legal representation — no written submissions filed and only brief oral submissions — was noted but did not alter the outcome.
The full text is available to signed-in members.