1605153 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Hindu and Christian individual, sought review of the Refugee Tribunal's decision to refuse their application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to be a victim of harassment by Muslim students in their home country, alleging this persecution was based on their religion and membership in a particular social group. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant's fear of persecution was well-founded, specifically whether the alleged harassment constituted persecution for a Convention reason, namely race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. A key issue was the applicant's credibility, given inconsistencies in their account and the Tribunal's findings regarding the veracity of their claims.

The court considered the evidence presented by the applicant and the Tribunal's assessment of that evidence. It applied the principles established in refugee law concerning the assessment of claims for protection visas, including the standard of proof required and the definition of persecution. The court analysed whether the alleged harassment, if accepted as true, would amount to persecution and whether it was linked to a Convention ground. The court also had regard to the Tribunal's findings on credibility and whether those findings were reasonably open on the evidence.

The court found that the Tribunal had made an error in its assessment of the applicant's credibility and in its application of the law to the facts. Consequently, the court set aside the decision of the Refugee Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Tribunal to be heard and determined according to law.