BDT20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The applicant, BDT20, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to affirm the refusal of his Safe Haven Enterprise (SHEV) visa. BDT20, a Bangladeshi citizen who arrived in Australia by boat in 2012 and has been in detention for a significant period, initially claimed to be Muslim and unmarried. He later claimed to have converted to Hinduism prior to his arrival and subsequently to Christianity after arriving in Australia, fearing persecution as a Christian convert if returned to Bangladesh. The AAT was not satisfied that his conversion to Christianity was genuine and not undertaken solely to strengthen his refugee claim.

The legal issues before the court were whether the AAT had properly addressed the applicant's claim of conversion to Christianity and whether its failure to consider specific corroborating evidence constituted jurisdictional error. The applicant argued that the AAT had not adequately considered letters relied upon as corroboration for his fear of persecution based on his conversion.

The court considered the principles governing the assessment of protection visa claims, particularly the requirement under section 5J(6) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to disregard conduct in Australia unless the applicant satisfies the Minister that it was engaged in otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening a refugee claim. The court noted that a finding that conduct was engaged in for the purpose of strengthening a claim does not necessarily preclude a finding that the person is genuine in their religious beliefs. The applicant bore the onus of persuading the court that the AAT had failed to consider the corroborating letters and that such failure was of sufficient importance to constitute a failure to perform its statutory task. The court found that the AAT had not failed to address the applicant's claim of persecution based on his conversion to Christianity and was not persuaded that the AAT had failed to consider the five corroborating letters. The AAT's reasons were found to be comprehensive in assessing the applicant's claims, including how they evolved throughout the application process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs.