CWR16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

This appeal concerns the decision of the Tribunal, made on 16 March 2016, to refuse the appellant a Protection Visa on the basis of adverse credibility findings. The appellant, a Christian from Pakistan, argued that he was at risk of serious harm if returned to Pakistan because of his Christian faith and involvement with his church. The Tribunal rejected his claims, finding them to be inconsistent and implausible, and thus did not accept that he faced a real chance of serious harm in Pakistan. The appellant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Circuit Court, which was dismissed. He now appeals to this Court.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Tribunal’s approach to credibility findings and witness statements was legally sound, and whether the Tribunal failed to consider holistically the evidence before it. The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred by not accepting witness statements from friends and relatives, and by failing to consider the appellant’s claims in their entirety. The Court considered whether the Tribunal’s findings were open, and whether the Tribunal had properly considered all the evidence. The Court found that the Tribunal had not erred in its approach to credibility findings and witness statements, and had appropriately considered the evidence before it.

The Court held that the Tribunal’s adverse credibility findings were open, given the inconsistencies and implausibility of the appellant’s claims. The Court noted that the Tribunal had provided detailed reasons for its findings, and that the appellant had not provided any evidence to rebut the Tribunal’s findings. The Court also held that the Tribunal had properly considered the evidence before it, including the witness statements, and had not failed to consider holistically the evidence. The Court found that the Tribunal had given appropriate weight to the evidence and had not erred in its consideration of the appellant’s claims.

The Court dismissed the appeal and ordered that leave be granted to file, read and rely upon the amended notice of appeal dated 11 April 2018, and that the appeal be dismissed with costs.