The Court dismissed the judicial review application, finding no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's conduct of a telephone hearing despite repeated audio and interpretation difficulties, holding that the transcript demonstrated the applicant was given a fair opportunity to present his case as issues were addressed in real time. The Court held that the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings were based on multiple factors — inconsistent evidence, vagueness, and lack of corroboration — not merely a single inconsistency about the loan purpose, and that the Tribunal was not required to identify an alternative explanation for injuries it declined to attribute to loan sharks. The state protection finding under s 5LA was in any event not material given the Tribunal's rejection of the applicant's claims as fabricated.
The full text is available to signed-in members.