AEX15 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant, AEX15, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). The dispute concerned the RRT's assessment of the applicant's claims for protection, specifically whether the applicant feared persecution and serious harm within the meaning of section 91R of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter came before Judge Manousaridis in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The applicant raised two grounds of jurisdictional error. Firstly, it was argued that the RRT failed to consider each element of the applicant's claim and the entirety of the evidence in determining whether the feared persecution amounted to persecution and serious harm. This included allegations that the RRT did not account for the applicant's motivation for joining the BNP party, his family's support for the party, his role in organising protests against the Awami League government, and more recent information regarding attacks on BNP supporters. Secondly, the applicant contended that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which the RRT is part of, made a jurisdictional error by discarding all oral and written submissions without providing sufficient evidence of cumulative credibility concerns. The applicant also alleged that the RRT asked irrelevant questions to discredit him and relied solely on DFAT data, overlooking other evidence.

The Court found that the RRT did consider the applicant's evidence regarding his reasons for joining the BNP and why he was targeted by the Awami League. However, the RRT did not accept this evidence, providing reasons for its findings. The Court determined that it was reasonably open to the RRT not to accept the applicant's evidence, based on the reasons provided by the Tribunal. Therefore, the applicant's first ground of error, as framed, was not arguable. The Court's analysis focused on whether the RRT had actually considered the evidence, rather than whether it had accepted it.