Eyq17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

In the case of Eyq17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the applicant, a citizen of Papua New Guinea, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to refuse his application for a protection visa. The applicant had claimed that he feared tribal revenge killings if he returned to PNG, citing the deaths of his father, wife, son, and cousin as examples of such violence. The primary issue for the court was whether the AAT had a duty to make inquiries that could have provided additional evidence to support the applicant's claims. The court had to determine whether the AAT failed to make an inquiry into a critical fact and whether such an inquiry was obvious. The applicant argued that the AAT should have contacted the hospital where his family members died to obtain more information.

The court reasoned that the burden was on the applicant to demonstrate the genuineness of his claims. The applicant had not presented any evidence to suggest that the hospital had information that would be probative of his claims, nor had he made any inquiries himself or requested the AAT to do so. The court held that it was not for the AAT to chase down every speculative theory or fill gaps in the applicant's evidence by making investigations that the applicant did not ask for. The court concluded that the failure of the AAT to make inquiries into the deaths of the applicant's family members did not constitute jurisdictional error, as there were no rare or exceptional circumstances that would require such inquiries.

The court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicant pay the Minister's costs. This decision underscored the principle that the responsibility to present sufficient evidence lies with the applicant, and the AAT is not obligated to conduct its own investigations unless specifically requested to do so by the applicant.