BWT17 v Minister for Immigration

The applicant sought review of a decision by the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) to refuse a protection visa. The applicant claimed a fear of harm in Sri Lanka, but the IAA found these fears were not well-founded outside his local area. The matter came before Judge Driver in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the IAA had misapplied the "real chance test" in assessing the applicant's claims, or whether it had unreasonably failed to invite or consider inviting the applicant to provide further information. The applicant also contended that the IAA's consideration of his father's position as a police officer of Tamil ethnicity reflected a failure to apply a "what if I am wrong" approach.

The court found no jurisdictional error. It distinguished the present case from *DRO17 v Minister for Immigration & Anor*, noting that in *DRO17*, the applicant's past support for the LTTE created a profile that could lead to further persecution. In contrast, the IAA in this matter did not accept the applicant was responsible for concerns facing his family, finding that the harassment he faced in his mother's village was due to his ethnicity in a Sinhalese majority area, not because he was specifically targeted. The IAA also noted the applicant had never been detained or interrogated, indicating authorities did not consider him to have an adverse profile. The court also found that the IAA's consideration of the complaint card and its use of the term "will likely" did not demonstrate doubt in its findings or a misapplication of the required test.