1720116 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, sought a protection visa. She claimed that her political activism with the Union Pour la Democratie et le Progres Social (UDPS) led to her arrest, imprisonment, rape, and subsequent escape from the Democratic Republic of Congo. She further alleged that she was trafficked to Australia, where she was subjected to further sexual assault and exploitation. The delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The applicant sought judicial review of this decision in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate’s adverse credibility findings were reasonably open on the evidence, and consequently, whether the delegate’s conclusion that the applicant had not established she was a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations was correct. This involved an assessment of the applicant's claims regarding her political activities, her persecution in the Democratic Republic of Congo, her subsequent experiences of trafficking and sexual assault, and the potential harm she would face if returned to her country of origin. The Court was also required to consider the applicant's claims of using aliases and the impact of her husband's and children's disappearance on her case.

The Court affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the delegate had made a number of adverse credibility findings against the applicant that were reasonably open on the evidence. These findings related to inconsistencies and a lack of detail in her account of her political involvement, her escape from prison, and her subsequent movements. The Court noted that while the applicant's narrative contained elements of significant hardship and trauma, the delegate was entitled to find that the applicant had not discharged her onus of establishing the facts upon which her claim for protection was based to the requisite standard. The Court also considered the applicant's Australian citizen children, but this did not alter the outcome of the review. The Court concluded that the delegate’s decision was not affected by jurisdictional error.

The application for review was affirmed, and the decision under review was affirmed.