Case: VAF v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural &amp; Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 123 , 206 ALR 471
Outcome: followed
No question arises in the present proceedings of the Tribunal ascribing to particular information provided by an applicant a significance or relevance of which an applicant may have been unaware: VAF v Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural &amp; Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 123 at [26] [28], [2004] FCAFC 123 ; 206 ALR 471 at 477 8 per Finn and Stone JJ. And no question arises as to a particular significance or relevance being attached to " information " provided to the Tribunal, as opposed to " information " provided for the purposes of the visa application: Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural Affairs v Al Shamry [2001] FCA 919 , 110 FCR 27. The " reason " for the Tribunal's decision was simply the inadequacy of any of the materials provided by the now Appellant. The Tribunal thus concluded: The mere fact that a person claims a fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is "well founded" or is for the reason claimed. It remains for the first named applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicants themselves in as much detail as is necessary to enable the decision maker to establish the relevant facts. The Tribunal is not required to make the applicants' case for them. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all of the allegations made by applicants. ( MIEA v Guo &amp; Anor [1997] HCA 22 ; (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA [1992] FCA 470 ; (1992) 38 FCR 191 , Prasad v MIEA [1985] FCA 47 ; (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70.) The first named applicant did not attend the hearing and this leaves the Tribunal with claims which are untested and stated in the most general terms. The Tribunal was unable to explore with the first named applicant who the "antisocial elements' were that threatened him, when he was threatened, how he was threatened, whether he reported the threats to the police and, if so, what action the police took, who the people were he suspects attacked him, when he was attacked, how he was attacked, whether there were any witnesses present, whether he reported the attack to the police and, if so, what action the police took, whether he had considered relocation within India and what is likely to happen to him if he were to return to India in the foreseeable future. The information that the first named applicant has submitted does not provide the necessary detail for the Tribunal to be satisfied as to the veracity of his claims or that he has a well founded fear of persecution. Further the Tribunal has not been able to discuss with the first named applicant independent country information which may be relevant to his particular claims. In these circumstances the Tribunal is unable to be satisfied that the first named applicant has a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of his political opinion or any other Convention based reason.