1416756 (Refugee)

This matter concerns an application for judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal. The applicant, a Tamil man from Sri Lanka, sought a protection visa on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal had affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had erred in law in its assessment of the applicant's claims for protection. Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the Tribunal had properly applied the evidentiary burden on the applicant to establish his claims, and whether it had adequately considered the evidence presented in light of the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Refugee Convention*.

The court affirmed the principle that the onus rests on the applicant to specify all particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence to establish it, as stipulated by section 5AAA of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Tribunal is not obliged to make or assist in establishing the applicant's case. The court noted that the mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or that it is well-founded, nor does it automatically establish a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal must be satisfied that all statutory elements are met based on the evidence presented by the applicant. The court reviewed the applicant's statements regarding alleged past persecution by the Sri Lankan Army and the LTTE, as well as incidents involving "Karuna people" and the CID, and considered whether the Tribunal had given these claims due consideration.

The court found no error of law in the Tribunal's decision and therefore dismissed the application for judicial review.