Bub18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The applicants, citizens of China, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed the refusal of their applications for protection visas. The applicants had claimed they feared harm from Chinese authorities and a criminal organisation, the "black society," due to the first applicant's alleged involvement in assisting a friend who had reported corruption within the Xun Country government. They also presented evidence of their attendance at a church in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Court was whether the AAT erred in finding that the first applicant was not a witness of truth and had fabricated his claims for protection visas. This involved assessing whether the AAT's numerous findings of inconsistency and implausibility in the first applicant's evidence, as well as its assessment of the applicants' religious claims, were reasonably open to it on the material before it. The court was required to determine if the AAT had properly considered all relevant evidence and applied the correct legal principles in reaching its conclusion that the applicants had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa under sections 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

Emmett J found that the AAT had meticulously examined the evidence, identifying multiple inconsistencies and implausibilities in the first applicant's account. These included discrepancies in dates, the plausibility of evading Chinese authorities, the alleged continued harassment after release, the inconsistent accounts of police visits to the applicant's home and searches, conflicting evidence regarding injuries sustained during detention, and unsubstantiated claims about the "black society." Furthermore, the AAT found the applicants' religious claims to be opportunistic and not genuine, noting the lack of prior mention of religion in their applications and the first applicant's limited knowledge of the Bible. The AAT's reasoning, based on these extensive credibility findings and its assessment of the evidence, was found to be sound and open to it.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.