CAB18 v Minister for Home Affairs

The applicant, CAB18, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse their application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm at the hands of the police and military in Fiji. The primary judge dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's evidence was inconsistent and implausible, and that there was no real chance of the applicant suffering serious harm or a real risk of significant harm from Fiji's security authorities.

The court was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in law in dismissing the application for judicial review. Specifically, the court considered whether the primary judge had correctly assessed the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles concerning the assessment of a protection visa claim, particularly in relation to the risk of harm from state actors.

The court affirmed the primary judge's findings, concluding that no jurisdictional error had been demonstrated. The reasoning focused on the inherent inconsistencies and implausibility of the applicant's evidence, which led the primary judge to conclude that the applicant had not established a real chance of suffering serious harm or a real risk of significant harm from the Fiji police or military. The legal principles applied involved the standard of proof for protection visa claims and the assessment of credibility in such claims.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.