BHG16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

The applicant, BHG16, applied to the Federal Circuit Court for an extension of time and leave to appeal from orders of that Court dismissing his application for a protection visa. The Minister for Immigration and Border Protection opposed the application. The matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The primary issue before the AAT was whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa under the complementary protection provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The AAT concluded that the applicant was not a witness of truth and had not provided credible evidence regarding his claims for protection. The AAT found that there was no real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm if returned to India. Consequently, the AAT affirmed the decision of the delegate not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

The AAT carefully considered the principles of law relevant to the case, the applicant’s claims, and the submissions made by the applicant’s representative. The AAT also summarised the applicant’s oral evidence and noted that the Tribunal had the option to consider third country protection provisions under section 36(3) of the Migration Act. However, the AAT found it unnecessary to make a final determination on this matter given its conclusions on other issues. The AAT assessed the applicant’s credibility and found issues with the vagueness and inconsistencies in his testimony. It did not accept some aspects of the applicant’s evidence. Ultimately, the AAT concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act, and therefore affirmed the delegate’s decision not to grant a protection visa. The Federal Circuit Court subsequently dismissed the applicant’s application for an extension of time and leave to appeal, and ordered the applicant to pay the Minister’s costs of the application.