DUO16 v Minister for Immigration and Anor (No.2)

The applicant, DUO16, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (and a second respondent, the Department of Home Affairs) to refuse their application for a protection visa. The primary dispute concerned the delegate's satisfaction regarding the genuineness of the applicant's claimed conversion to Christianity. The matter came before Judge Egan of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate's adverse finding on the genuineness of the applicant's claimed religious conversion was reasonably open on the evidence before the delegate. This involved an assessment of whether the delegate's findings of fact were supported by the evidence presented and whether the delegate had properly applied the relevant legal criteria for assessing the credibility and genuineness of the applicant's claims.

Judge Egan found that the delegate's assessment of the evidence, including the applicant's account of their conversion and subsequent religious practice, was open on the evidence. The delegate was entitled to reach the conclusion that the claimed conversion was not genuine, based on the inconsistencies and lack of corroboration identified in the applicant's evidence. The Court therefore held that the delegate's decision was not vitiated by error. The application for judicial review was dismissed.