BDN19 v Minister for Home Affairs

In *BDN19 v Minister for Home Affairs*, heard before Judge Egan, the applicant, a journalist from Rwanda, sought review of the Minister's decision to refuse their application for a protection visa. The applicant's claims regarding the likelihood of suffering harm if returned to Rwanda were found to be conflicting and implausible.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had discharged the onus of proving that they would be at real chance of suffering significant harm, as defined by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), if returned to Rwanda. This required an assessment of the credibility and plausibility of the applicant's claims in light of the available evidence.

Judge Egan found that the applicant's evidence did not establish a real chance of suffering significant harm. The Court considered the inconsistencies within the applicant's account and concluded that the claims lacked sufficient credibility and plausibility to meet the required threshold for protection. Consequently, the application for a protection visa was dismissed.