FMS18 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FedCFamC2G 1881

r 24.04 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2025 (Cth).

1. By application filed on 17 October 2018, and amended on 9 August 2025, the applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (the Authority) dated

9 October 2018. The Authority affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister (the delegate) of the First Respondent (the Minister) to the applicant a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV) visa (the visa) pursuant to s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

1. The Applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka born in May 1987. He first arrived in Australia on

2 October 2012 as an unauthorised maritime arrival. On 24 March 2017, he applied for the visa subject of the review. 2. On 20 April 2018, the delegate refused to grant the applicant a visa. On 26 April 2018, the delegate's decision was referred to the Authority for review.

1. The dispositive issue before the Authority was whether the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
2. At [3]-[5], the Authority summarised the material and evidence before it. It noted that several documents were not before the delegate at the time it made its decision. The Authority was satisfied ss 473DD(b)(ii) and 473DD(a) were met in relation to those documents.
3. At [6], the Authority summarised the applicant's claims. Relevantly, the applicant claimed that he suffered as a candidate in the North and Eastern Provincial Elections in Sri Lanka in 2012. A high-ranking officer in the army named Kumar, threatened to kill the applicant after the elections and continued to contact the applicant's family on several occasions since he departed Sri Lanka. The applicant also claimed his cumulative activities in Australia as part of the Tamil Diaspora opposing the Sri Lankan government put him in danger should he return to his home country.
4. At [7]-[8], the Authority outlined the refugee criterion and the definition of 'well-founded fear' of persecution.
5. At [9], the Authority accepted the applicant was a Sri Lankan national and that Sri Lanka was his receiving country.
6. At [10], the Authority found the applicant had been consistent and generally credible in his claim and accepted the applicant was held by the LTTE for two weeks at age 15, and that they attempted to recruit him. The Authority found, however, that the applicant did not face a real chance of harm from the LTTE upon his return to Sri Lanka as the applicant did not claim to have experienced any further problems or recruitment attempts by the LTTE. Moreover, country information indicated that the conflict with the LTTE ended in 2009 and the LTTE no longer existed as an organised force in Sri Lanka.
7. At [11], the Authority accepted that the applicant had been rounded up by the army in 2001, alongside other villagers, who checked their IDs and slapped them. The Authority did not accept the applicant faced a real chance of any harm on account of it or that he would be imputed with a pro-LTTE opinion by the Sri Lankan authorities or anyone else.
8. At [12], the Authority noted that while it accepted the applicant had his ID checked on many occasions by the army, it was not satisfied that that the applicant was ever beaten up by the Sri Lankan authorities for not having an ID.
9. At [13], the Authority accepted that in 2005 the applicant was detained and beaten for five hours by members of the Karuna Group after he refused to give them money or buy alcohol for them. The Authority accepted that a member from that group knew about his prior abduction by the LTTE, and told other members of the Karuna Group his concerns that the applicant may have received LTTE training. The Authority also accepted he was released after a neighbour explained to them that he was not a member of the LTTE.
10. At [14], the Authority accepted the applicant's family had disputes with Kumar because the applicant's parents denied Kumar's request to borrow the family's tractor. The Authority also accepted the applicant's brother had assaulted Kumar's cousin in retaliation when the cousin harassed the applicant's sister. The Authority accepted that Kumar later joined the army and had a senior role and had connections with the Karuna Group.
11. At [15], the Authority accepted that in February 2008, the applicant was stopped, beaten, and bitten by army officers at a checkpoint near his home, given country information that the army controlled access points into his village. However, the Authority did not accept the applicant's claims that Kumar was involved in this incident, was specifically targeting the applicant, and the accusation of Kumar having LTTE links and training.
12. At [16], the Authority accepted the applicant was involved in a youth group at the Batticaloa Centre for Performing Arts and that he participated in dance performances and Tamil cultural events. It also accepted the applicant became close with a man called Brendavan who was involved in the Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (TMVP) (previously known as the

'Karuna Group') and was a friend of a man who was the secretary to Pillayan, the Chief Minister of Eastern Province at the time. The Authority accepted he assisted Brendavan, lobbied for Pillayan, and went to many events and meetings associated with Pillayan and took photos. 13. At [17], the Authority did not accept, due to inconsistencies in the applicant's claims and country information before it, that the applicant was threatened by the Prashna Group (part of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA)) due to his association with Brendavan or that this group trashed an office of the TMVP as has been claimed. The Authority did not accept that he ever was or is of any adverse interest to the Prashna Group or that during the election he was harassed by unidentified government supporters as claimed. Ultimately, the Authority did not accept that the applicant faced a real chance of any harm from the Prashna Group or the TNA. 14. At [18], the Authority contrary to the delegate's findings, was satisfied that the applicant and Brendavan were candidates for Group 7. However, it did not accept that Group 7 or the applicant, actively and openly campaigned or canvassed on the platform of a separate Tamil state as claimed. In making this finding, the Authority referenced country information which indicated that in the post-war period following the defeat of the LTTE, the Sri Lankan authorities were very sensitive to the possibility of a LTTE resurgence and there was a low tolerance for suspected LTTE supporters and separatist Tamil state views. The Authority also found it implausible and not credible that the applicant would not have known of the violent, criminal activities the TMVP were involved in prior to his involvement with them in 2010 and that he remained ignorant for approximately two years, until 2012. 15. At [19], the Authority did not accept Kumar had an ongoing adverse interest in the applicant for any reason, or that the applicant faced a real chance of harm from Kumar. In making these findings the Authority noted, at [20], that it took into account and gave little weight to the letter from Brendavan, the contents of which it considered did not overcome the Authority's concerns. 16. At [21], the Authority noted that in making its findings it took into account the applicant's claims that he had a disturbed and confused mind due to his fear and anxiety over the future and his past traumatic experiences. The Authority noted the applicant was represented at the interview and no independent evidence was provided regarding his mental state. It considered the applicant was able to fully participate at the hearing and his claimed mental state did not overcome the highly significant and fundamental concerns that it had with his evidence and claims. 17. At [22]-[23], the Authority accepted that since arriving in Australia, the applicant had engaged in Tamil diaspora activities, including: * volunteering with the Tamil Refugee Council (TRC); * co-ordinating events to highlight human rights abuses in Sri Lanka; * participating in and choreographing dances and dramas relating to the mistreatment of Tamils; * attending and actively assisting in organising the Annual Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day event in May 2014, and playing a major role in a play in that evening; * informally engaging in some public speaking in the course of conducting diaspora activities, although he did not make any formal speeches to audiences about human rights in Sri Lanka; * acting in a movie entitled 'Witness in Heaven', which depicts the killing of journalist Issaipriya and LTTE leader Prabakara's son Balachandran by Sri Lankan authorities, in which the applicant played the role of a restaurant worker interviewed by Issaipriya. 18. The Authority did not accept that the Applicant would be of adverse interest to, or perceived to be linked to the LTTE, by the Sri Lankan authorities or anyone else (including the Karuna Group), and targeted for harm due to his past political activities in Sri Lanka or in Australia. Relevantly, at [24] it found that:

In Australia, the applicant has participated in a number of activities concerning human rights abuses in Sri Lanka. This has included participation and organisation of public events as well as a minor role in a movie. I am satisfied that that he engaged in this conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening his refugee claims. Considering these activities as a whole, however, I do not accept that this indicates that he is a high profile political activist or leader and I consider his activities to only be low-profile and fairly limited in scope. I do not accept that there is a real chance he would be perceived to be, a threat to the integrity of Sri Lanka as a single state because he is, or is perceived to have a significant role in relation to post-conflict Tamil separatism within the Diaspora and/or a renewal of hostilities within Sri Lanka.

1. Based on the applicant's circumstances and the country information it considered, the Authority found that the applicant did not face a real chance of serious harm from the Sri Lankan authorities or anyone else on account of being a middle-aged Tamil man from the Eastern Province, or due to his actual or imputed political opinions: at [25]-[26]. It found that any risk of harm from the Karuna Group, or on account of his religion, was remote: at

[27]-[28]. 2. At [29], the Authority accepted that the applicant departed the country illegally. Having considered the country information (at [30]-[34]), the Authority was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of harm as a returning Tamil asylum seeker, taking into account his past interactions with the Sri Lankan authorities and his political activities both in Australia and Sri Lanka: at [36]. It was also not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm for his illegal departure from Sri Lanka in 2013: at [37]. 3. Considering his profile on a cumulative basis, the Authority was also not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of harm from the Sri Lankan authorities or anyone else: at [38]. 4. Accordingly, the Authority found that the applicant did not satisfy s 36(2)(a): at [39]. In reliance on its earlier findings, the Authority was also not satisfied that the applicant met

s 36(2)(aa): at [40]-[44]. 5. The Authority thus affirmed the delegate's decision.

1. The amended application filed on 9 August 2025 advanced a single ground of review.
2. The following was admitted into evidence:

(a) Affidavit of Bonita Cynthia Silva, sworn on 14 October 2019, annexing a transcript of the interview before the delegate held on 1 March 2018.

(b) The Court Book filed by the Minister on 10 January 2019, marked as Exhibit CB.

1. On 9 August 2025, the applicant filed their written outline of submissions (AS). On 2 September 2025, the Minister filed their written outline of submissions (MS). A list of authorities was also filed by the applicant prior to the hearing.
2. At the hearing on 16 September 2025, Mr A Silva of counsel appeared on behalf of the applicant. The Minister was represented by Mr N Swan of counsel, instructed by Minter Ellison. The oral submissions of the parties developed their written submissions.

1. The application for judicial review advanced the following ground (without alteration):

The Authority committed jurisdictional error by acting legally unreasonably in its assessment of the applicant's claim that, due to his diaspora activities in Australia, he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka.

Particulars

(a) The Authority's decision was unreasonable both in its ultimate conclusion, and in its reasoning process.

(b) The Authority accepted that in Australia the applicant has participated in activities concerning human rights abuses in Sri Lanka (CB289 [24]) and, more broadly, acknowledged his numerous anti-Sri Lankan government activities (CB286-287 [22]-[23]).

(c) One such activity, recorded at CB286 [23], was his role in the film Witness in Heaven, depicting the rape and killing of Tamil journalist Issaipriya and the killing of LTTE leader Prabakaran's son Balachandran by Sri Lankan authorities. The film raised issues capable of causing significant reputational damage to Sri Lanka internationally, making the applicant a person of serious adverse interest to Sri Lankan authorities - particularly given ongoing international accusations of genocide against Sri Lanka.

(d) Despite this, the Authority wrongly confined its consideration (and even in that assessment it erred) to whether the applicant:

(i) was a high-profile political leader; or

(ii) would be perceived as a threat to Sri Lanka's territorial integrity because of a significant role in post-conflict Tamil separatism or a renewal of hostilities within Sri Lanka.

(e) Having set out the full scope of the applicant's anti-Sri Lankan activities at [22]-[23], the Authority unreasonably reduced its assessment at [24] to a narrow and limited characterisation of his involvement when making its conclusion.

(f) The Authority failed to evaluate how the applicant's various activities - when considered cumulatively - raised his profile to a significant or "high profile" level. Even accepting the finding that he did not give formal speeches on human rights in Sri Lanka, the remaining activities were each capable of enhancing his profile. The Authority did not turn its mind to this cumulative assessment (see Transcript pg. 55 line 34-44; pg. 56 line 35 to pg. 57 line 1).

1. By this ground, the applicant contends that the Authority's assessment of the evidence concerning the applicant's participation in Tamil diaspora activities in Australia and its reasoning with respect to that claim was legally unreasonable. It is also contended that the Authority's conclusion that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka on account of these activities was legally unreasonable.

Relevant authorities - legal unreasonableness

1. The applicant relied upon Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZVFW [2018] HCA 30; (2018) 264 CLR 541 (SZVFW), where Nettle and Gordon JJ at [82] and [84] relevantly said:

[82] Nor is the abuse of statutory power limited to a decision which may be described as "manifestly unreasonable", or to what might be described as an irrational, if not bizarre, decision that is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have arrived at it. A conclusion of legal unreasonableness may be outcome focused - where, for instance, there is no "evident and intelligible justification" for the decision. As

Gageler J explained in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li, "[r]eview by a court of the reasonableness of a decision made by another repository of power 'is concerned mostly with the existence of justification, transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process' but also with 'whether the decision falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law'". (citations omitted)

[84] Moreover, legal unreasonableness is invariably fact dependent and requires a careful evaluation of the evidence. That is, assessment of whether a decision was beyond power because it was legally unreasonable depends on the application of the relevant principles to the particular factual circumstances of the case, rather than by way of an analysis of factual similarities or differences between individual cases. Where reasons are provided, they will be a focal point for that assessment. It would be a rare case to find that the exercise of a discretionary power was unreasonable where the reasons demonstrated a justification for that exercise of power.

1. The Minister relied upon SZVFW at [11] where Kiefel CJ said:

... But it serves to highlight the fact that the test for unreasonableness is necessarily stringent. And that is because the courts will not lightly interfere with the exercise of a statutory power involving an area of discretion... (citations omitted)

1. The Minister also relied upon DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 2; (2018) 258 FCR 175 at [30] where Kenny, Kerr and Perry JJ said:

(5) ... As such, to establish jurisdictional error based on illogical or irrational findings of fact or reasoning, "extreme" illogicality must be demonstrated "measured against the standard that it is not enough for the question of fact to be one on which reasonable minds may come to different conclusions" (SZRKT at [148]; see also SZMDS at [135] and CQG15 at [60]). Thus, "[e]ven emphatic disagreement with the Tribunal's reasoning would not be sufficient to make out illogicality": CQG15 at [61].

1. The parties relied upon Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Sabharwal [2018] FCAFC 160 (Sabharwal) at [45] where Perram, Murphy, and Lee JJ said:

[45] Illogicality, irrationality or legal unreasonableness in the reasons for an administrative decision may establish jurisdictional error, as may a failure to give proper, genuine or realistic consideration to a significant matter. An illogical or irrational administrative decision, or an illogical or irrational finding of fact or reasoning along the way to making the decision, may establish jurisdictional error if, for example, the decision or finding is not open on the evidence or if there is no logical connection between the evidence and the inferences or conclusions drawn. Making a finding on a fact or issue in the application by drawing an inference or a conclusion which lacks a logical connection with the evidence might also be described as failing to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the fact or issue. However, any such decision or finding will not involve jurisdictional error if a reasonable decision-maker could reach that decision or finding on the same material: SZMDS at [130]-[132] and [135] per Crennan and Bell JJ and at [78] per Heydon J. As Allsop CJ observed in Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v Stretton [2016] FCAFC 11; (2016) 237 FCR 1 at [21] the question is "whether a decision-maker could reasonably come to the conclusion" reached. If the conclusion is one upon which reasonable minds can differ, it will not be legally illogical, irrational or unreasonable.

1. Other authorities relied upon by the parties have been referenced below in the summary of the submissions.

1. In his submissions, the applicant challenges the Authority's assessment of the evidence relating to his Tamil diaspora activities in Australia. The applicant also challenges the Authority's reasoning which led to the finding that the applicant's activities in Australia were 'low profile and fairly limited in scope', and its conclusion that the applicant will not face a real chance of serious harm upon return to Sri Lanka on account of these activities.
2. As set out above, the Authority accepted that the applicant had been involved in Tamil diaspora activities in Australia, including volunteering with the TRC, choreographing and participating in dances and dramas regarding the situation and mistreatment of Tamils, active involvement in organising the Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day in 2014 including having a major role in a play on the day, giving informal speeches in the course of his involvement with diaspora activities, and having a role in the film 'Witness of Heaven', as a restaurant worker who was interviewed by lssaipriya, a journalist killed by Sri Lankan authorities.
3. The applicant submitted that due to his illegal departure from Sri Lanka, he was likely to be questioned upon his return (under the Immigrants and Emigrants Act 1949 (Sri Lanka)), and that the Sri Lankan authorities would uncover his political activism: at AS [16]-[17]. The applicant submitted that this demonstrated that he 'will be' identified and arrested, that it was 'highly likely' he would be investigated and persecuted, and therefore, the Authority acted unreasonably by failing to consider this: at AS [17].
4. The applicant submitted that the legal standard of reasonableness had been breached in the following ways:

(i) failure by the Authority to assess the activities of the applicant cumulatively to identify whether he comes within the categories of people considered by the Authority to be at risk upon return to Sri Lanka (i.e., high profile political activist or leader or a person perceived to have a significant role in relation to post-conflict Tamil separatism within the diaspora and/or a renewal of hostilities within Sri Lanka): at AS [18](i);

(ii) failure by the Authority to consider that the applicant would be in danger upon return because his activist activities would be seen as having damaged the reputation of Sri Lanka and that the Authority's formulaic assessment, by reference to country information, of the applicant's claims allowed for an unreasonable disregard of the unique features of the applicant's case[1]: at AS [18](ii);

(iii) unreasonable assessment by the Authority of the applicant's activities in Australia when making its conclusion at [24] about his role, which suggested a 'much narrower and limited involvement' in anti-Sri Lanka activities than those set out at [22]-[23] of its reasons: at AS [18](iii);

(iv) failure by the Authority to consider how the applicant's activist activities, cumulatively, raised his profile to a significant level to make it 'high profile';

(v) failure by the Authority to explain its assessment of the applicant's role in the movie as being 'minor' in circumstances where it had not watched the movie, and by this, a failure to properly consider the impact of this involvement on his public profile: at AS [18](v); and

(vi) failure by the Authority to properly consider the applicant's role in the 'Remembrance Day' event in 2014, which was of 'high visibility', and unreasonably affected its assessment of the risk of harm that may be faced by the applicant upon return to Sri Lanka: at AS [18](vi).

1. The applicant contended that, having regard to the significant and multifaced level of his involvement in activist activities in Australia, it was unreasonable for the Authority to conclude that he had a 'low profile'. It was submitted that there was no transparent and intelligible justification in the reasoning process of the Authority and that the outcome, or 'abrupt' conclusion at [24], was also legally unreasonable because it lacked an evident and intelligible justification.
2. In oral submissions, the applicant took specific issue with the Authority's assessment of the evidence relating to his involvement on Remembrance Day and his role in the movie 'Witness in Heaven', stating that these activities would have attracted the attention of the Sri-Lankan authorities, who monitor overseas activities, and put the applicant at risk of harm if he returned to Sri Lanka. It was contended that the Authority's failure to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the applicant's activist activities in Australia, led it to unreasonably limit the characterisation of the applicant's involvement as being 'limited in scope'.
3. The applicant referred to the country information provided by his representative to the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) in March 2018 (CB 158), which included an excerpt from a report by the International Truth Project Sri Lanka which said Tamils who returned to Sri Lanka from abroad were under surveillance and that Sri Lankan intelligence services were still monitoring diaspora events at home and abroad, such as Remembrance Day events, taking photographs and then showing them to detainees. The report stated, 'this indicates that attending these events is a risk if you intend to return home or have family living there'.
4. It was submitted that the report indicated that the applicant, having played a prominent role on Remembrance Day, combined with other activist activities, had an increased risk profile and would likely attract the attention of the Sri Lankan authorities. It was submitted that the Authority had failed to properly consider this report and thereby fell into error.
5. The applicant also submitted that the Authority failed to consider that the applicant's Tamil diaspora activities would be characterised by the Sri Lankan authorities as post-conflict Tamil separatism. The applicant referred to the 'International Truth and Justice Report' at CB 167 which stated:

During the interrogation by the Sri Lankan security forces, several victims were falsely accused of working to restart the LTTE or bringing the country into disrepute by talking about what happened in the war and its aftermath. In some cases, the interrogators showed the victims printout of photographs of themselves or people close to them attending recent diaspora commemorative events abroad.

1. It was submitted that the Authority had unreasonably assessed the applicant's profile against that of a political activist or leader, rather than recognising that his activist activities in Australia were sufficient to attract the adverse attention of the Sri Lankan authorities.
2. The applicant also took issue with the Authority's reasons that it had considered the applicant's activities as a whole and that it had conducted its assessment on a cumulative basis, arguing that the Authority had merely paid 'lip service' to the relevant considerations: Islam v Cash [2015] FCA 815; (2015) 148 ALD 132 at [14]. The applicant also relied on NAJT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 134; (2005) 147 FCR 51 at [212] in support of his submission that the Authority had not given genuine or proper consideration to the cumulative significance of the applicant's activist activities in Australia.
3. The Minister submitted that applicant's submissions about what would likely occur to him upon return to Sri Lanka were based on his own assertions and that the Authority was not obliged to accept those claims. It was submitted that the Authority considered the applicant's claims and the evidence provided in relation to his Tamil diaspora activities in Australia, but that it was not obliged to accept the applicant's view as to the significance of those activities.
4. The Minister contended that the Authority's findings were not unreasonable or illogical and that a reasonable decision maker could have reached the same findings on the available materials. It was also contended that the Authority did consider the applicant's claims cumulatively.
5. Other aspects of the Minister's submissions are relevantly referred to further below.

Was the Authority's decision legally unreasonable?

1. Legal unreasonableness is not concerned with whether the reasoning and conclusions advanced by an applicant is open on the evidence. Nor is it concerned with whether the evidence and material before the Authority could have supported the reasoning and conclusions suggested by an applicant. The inquiry for a reviewing Court is whether, on the available material, it was open for the Authority to engage in the process of reasoning in which it engaged and make the findings and conclusions that it made: SZVFW; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS (2010) 240 CLR 611 at [133]-[135].
2. If the Authority's assessment of the evidence and its reasons and findings disclose an evident and intelligible justification, and the outcome falls within the range of permissible outcomes, then legal unreasonableness will not have been established.
3. Before considering whether the Authority's assessment of the evidence in relation to the applicant's activities in Australia, and its reasoning in that regard, lacked an evident or reasonable justification and whether its findings and conclusions were open to it on the material before it, I will first set out the claims and evidence that was before the Authority relevant to the ground of review advanced by the applicant.
4. With his visa application, the applicant provided a statement, dated 24 March 2017, in which he set out details of his Tamil diaspora activities in Australia: at CB 97-98. In the statement he claimed to fear harm if he returned to Sri Lanka on account of various matters, including his active involvement in the Tamil diaspora activities in Melbourne and Sydney. He claimed to fear being branded as a Tamil political activist: at CB 98.
5. In support of his claims, the applicant provided photographs and a letter confirming his involvement in organising the Annual Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day event in 2014 including taking a major role in a play about the suffering of Tamils in Sri Lanka. The letter indicated that the event was attended by 'close to one thousand Tamil people'. He also provided a letter from the film maker/producer of the film 'Witness in Heaven' confirming that the applicant played a role in the film and that the film 'had a controversy with Sri Lankan Government'. Also provided were letters of support from the President of the Tamil Refugee Council (TRC) and the Executive Officer for Refugees, Australian Tamil Congress (ATC), attesting to his active participation in Tamil diaspora activities in Australia and his 'heightened' risk of being subjected to harm upon return to Sri Lanka. Two CDs were also provided to the Department, one was said to contain the trailer of the movie 'Witness in Heaven', while the other showed the applicant's acting in a drama at a Tamil diaspora event: at CB 196, 200.
6. In post interview submissions, dated 15 March 2018, the applicant's representative provided further submissions as to the risk the applicant would face upon return to Sri Lanka: at

CB 151-182. Relevantly, the representative provided further details about the role the applicant played in the movie, which had not yet been released but for which there was an audio launch (with the actors and crew) at a function centre in Pendle Hill, NSW. The submissions set out excerpts of country information, which relevantly included information from reports by the International Truth Project Sri Lanka, dated in 2015 and 2016 (CB 156 and 167), indicating that Sri Lankan authorities were monitoring Tamil diaspora activities overseas and, in some cases, interrogating people who had attended those events. 7. On 20 April 2018, the delegate made a decision refusing to grant the applicant the visa. 8. While the delegate's decision is not the subject of the present review, there is some utility, for reasons that will be explained further below, in observing the delegate's assessment of the evidence relating to the applicant's diaspora activities in Australia. At CB 217, the delegate noted that in addition to the claims and evidence about his activities in Australia, the applicant had made further claims that he gave speeches in association with the TRC. The delegate considered the letters of support provided from the TRC and ATC and noted they did not mention the applicant's speech activities. The delegate also considered that the applicant's responses during the interview, when asked about his political opinion, to be simplistic and not reflective of someone who had experienced orating his political opinion formally to influence an audience. The delegate, nevertheless, found it plausible that the applicant may have infrequently done some public speaking in the course of conducting diaspora activities, but not formal speeches, as part of public discourse delivered to an audience about human rights abuses in Sri Lanka during the civil war. 9. The delegate acknowledged they had received the CD containing a video of the drama performance in which the applicant participated. While they could not view the content of the CD due to formatting issues, they accepted, based on other evidence before them, that the applicant had participated in the Remembrance Day drama performance. As for the CD containing the trailer of the movie 'Witness in Heaven', the delegate noted that the movie had not yet been released and the trailer of the movie could not be viewed on the CD provided due to formatting issues, they were nevertheless able to view the trailer online (on YouTube, accessed on 19 April 2018): at CB 218. The delegate accepted that the film was about the two major killings by the Sri Lankan authorities during the civil war and accepted the applicant's description of the role he played in the movie. 10. In assessing the applicant's claims, the delegate had regard to the Country Information Report, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, dated 24 January 2017 (2017 DFAT Report). The delegate found, having regard to the country information before it and its earlier findings about the applicant's political profile in Sri Lanka, that the applicant's political involvement in Australia would not cause him to be imputed with a high-risk anti-government profile and that the chance he would face serious harm because of his political activities was remote. 11. The matter was referred to the Authority for review. In addition to the material before the delegate, the Authority also had before it submissions, dated 28 July 2018, in which the applicant challenged the delegate's finding that the applicant would not be imputed with a high profile on the basis that the movie was not a 'low key' activity, and that the film, which could cause great embarrassment to the Sri Lankan government and military, had given the participants a high profile which put them at risk. The submissions also challenged, among other things, the delegate's rejection of the applicant's claim that he was a candidate in the Eastern Province election and provided further documents in that regard. 12. In the context of the above, I now turn to consider the Authority's decision. 13. Having considered the further information provided to it, the Authority accepted that the applicant was a candidate in the 2012 Eastern Province election for Group 7. However, based on the country information, it did not accept that Group 7 or the applicant had actively and openly campaigned or canvassed on the platform of a separate Tamil state as claimed: at [18]. The applicant does not challenge this finding. Further, as submitted by the Minister, the Authority had also found that the applicant did not have an adverse profile in Sri Lanka and was of no adverse interest to anyone in Sri Lanka on the basis of activities that he was involved in prior to his departure: at [10], [11], [15], [17]-[19], and [36]. These findings are also not challenged by the applicant. 14. In considering whether the applicant faced harm upon return to Sri Lanka on account of his Tamil diaspora activities in Australia, the Authority considered the applicant's profile and the country information before it. At [22], the Authority set out the applicant's involvement in the various diaspora activities in Australia and the supporting evidence provided. Like the delegate, it accepted that the applicant had been involved in those activities, but it did not accept that he had given formal speeches to audiences about human rights in Sri Lanka given his responses in the interview before the delegate. 15. At [23], the Authority considered the evidence before it regarding the film 'Witness in Heaven' and the applicant's role in the movie as described in the supporting letter from the director of the film. The Authority, like the delegate, also noted that while it was not able to view the CD, it was able to view the trailer of the film on YouTube. In oral submissions, the Minister properly noted that the applicant, in his submission to the Authority, disputed the delegate's consideration of the applicant's involvement in the movie and their finding that his activities in Australia would not cause him to be imputed with a high risk anti-government profile, but noted he had not provided any evidence, by way of country information or similar, which would support his submission that those 'involved in the film could not think of going back to Sri Lanka [and] the army would treat them as enemies and would persecute them'. 16. It is also of note that no further information had been provided to the Authority about whether the full movie had been released, given the evidence before the delegate indicated there was only an audio launch of the movie and a trailer. 17. In its assessment of the evidence, the Authority at [24] provided reasons as to why it did not accept that the applicant would be targeted for harm due to his past political activities in Sri Lanka, in Australia, or in relation to any future political activities he may undertake in Sri Lanka. Relevantly, it noted at [24](5) that it had found the applicant and Group 7 did not campaign on a platform for a separate Tamil state in 2012, that the applicant had described the group as a small group of only 14 members, and that it was no longer active. At [24](6)-(7), the Authority discussed the country information before it. It noted that it had regard to the country information provided by the applicant, but it placed little weight on some of that information as it was considered out of date. It went on to state:

I have given greater weight to country information that indicates only a limited number of persons are of continuing interest to the authorities. The country information also indicates there has been a marked improvement in the economic and security situation for Tamils in Sri Lanka since the election of President Sirisena in January 2015.

1. The Authority also indicated that it gave considerable weight to the 2017 DFAT Report. At [24](7), the Authority set out the country information as follows:

... DFAT assesses that there are no official laws and policies that discriminate on the basis of political opinion nor is there systemic political discrimination against any particular group. DFAT have reported that whilst tolerance for political dissent in Sri Lanka can be limited, it is increasingly accepted. The Sirisena Government has publicly committed to allowing freedom of speech and ending the surveillance of NGO workers and journalists, a practice which was widespread during the previous Rajapaksa government. DFAT also reports that Sri Lankan authorities may monitor any member of the Tamil diaspora returning to Sri Lanka, depending on their risk profile. High profile leaders of pro-LTTE diaspora groups may come to the attention of Sri Lankan authorities as a result of their participation in Tamil separatist demonstrations. The UK Home Office have referred to the UK Upper Tribunal decision of GJ & Others as having a risk category 'Individuals who are, or are perceived to be, a threat to the integrity of Sri Lanka as a single state because they are, or are perceived to have a significant role in relation to post-conflict Tamil separatism within the Diaspora and/or a renewal of hostilities within Sri Lanka.

DFAT have assessed that the monitoring and harassment of Tamils in day-to-day life has decreased significantly under the Sirasena government and that members of the Tamil community have described a positive shift in the nature of interactions with the authorities. They assess that Tamils have a substantial level of political influence in political dialogue has increased since Sirasena came to power in 2015 and that there are a large number of Tamil political parties. DFAT state that they are not aware of any evidence to suggest that Sinhalese, Tamil, Muslim or other parties face any differences in treatment and that they understand Tamils do not receive unwarranted attention from authorities because of their political involvement.

1. It is well established that the selection and weight given to country information was a matter for the Authority: NAHI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10 at [11]. It was open for the Authority to prefer (or give more weight to) the country information in the 2017 DFAT Report and other country information it relied upon to make its assessment over the country information provided by the applicant. This is particularly so in circumstances where it had given adequate reasons for why it preferred the country information it relied upon.
2. As to the Authority's assessment of the applicant's Tamil diaspora activities in Australia, at [24](8) it acknowledged that he had participated in 'a number of activities' concerning human rights abuses in Sri Lanka, 'including' participation and organisation in public events, as well as a 'minor role' in a movie. The acknowledgement of the activities in which the applicant participated must be read in the context of the Authority's findings and reasons at [22] and [23], including the activities it accepted the applicant had been involved in and those it rejected. The Authority's summary, at [24](8), of the activities it accepted the applicant had been involved in was not inaccurate. To read the Authority's reasons at [24](8) in isolation without regard to its earlier findings would be contrary to established principles that a decision-maker's reasons are to be read as a whole, in context, and not with an eye keenly attuned to error: _Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shang Lian_g (1996) 185 CLR 259 at [9]. In this regard, I reject the applicant's contention that the Authority, in making its findings, had only considered two of the six activities it had earlier accepted or that it failed to consider, in combination, the activities it accepted the applicant had been involved in whilst in Australia. The Authority expressly stated that it had considered the activities the applicant was involved in 'as a whole' at [24](8) and its reasons at [22], [23], and [24] plainly demonstrate that it did.
3. The Authority's assessment at 24(8), concerning the applicant's role in the film 'Witness from Heaven' to be a 'minor role' was open to it on the material before it. The evidence on which it relied to make this assessment was set out at [23] of its reasons. As noted above, the evidence before the Authority did not indicate that the movie had been released, though the Authority had watched the trailer on YouTube and had regard to the description of the applicant's role in the supporting material. No independent evidence or country information was provided to the Authority to support the applicant's submission about the significance of the role and the claim that he would suffer harm at the hands of the Sri Lankan army, who would see him as 'an enemy', due to his involvement in the movie. Based on the material before it, it was not so illogical or irrational for the Authority to find, as the delegate did, that the applicant's role was 'minor'. While another decision maker may have formed a different view on the same evidence, it cannot be said that the Authority's finding about the applicant's role in the movie was not open to it on the material before it.
4. Further, in the context of its earlier findings at [22], where it found that the applicant had not given formal speeches to audiences about human rights, and its consideration of the evidence in support of the other activities it accepted the applicant had participated in, it was not so illogical or irrational for it not to accept that the applicant was a 'high profile political activist or leader' and to consider his activities to be 'low profile and limited in scope'. It cannot be said that the Authority's assessment of the evidence or its conclusion in that regard lacked an evident and intelligible justification or that no reasonable decision maker could have engaged in the same process of reasoning.
5. As to the Authority's conclusion that the applicant's profile did not bring him within the classes of persons (as identified in the country information) who were at risk of coming to the attention of the Sri Linkan authorities, I am unable to discern any illogicality or unreasonableness in that reasoning. It was open to the Authority, given its consideration of the evidence about the applicant's activities in Australia and its earlier findings at [18] and [19] that the applicant was not involved in advocating for a separate Tamil state when in Sri Lanka, to not accept that there was a real chance the applicant would be perceived as a 'threat to the integrity of Sri Lanka as a single state because he is, or perceived to have a significant role in relation to post-conflict Tamil separatism within the diaspora and/or a renewal of hostilities within Sri Lanka': at [24](6)-(8).
6. The Authority expressly stated at [38] and [42] that it considered applicant's profile, including his activities in Australia, on a cumulative basis. Having regard to the entirety of the reasons, the Authority's consideration of the evidence and its findings in respect of each of the claims referred to at [38] and [42], I am satisfied that the Authority has demonstrated consideration of the applicant's claims cumulatively.
7. For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that the applicant has established that the Authority's assessment of the evidence, its findings or its reasons for concluding that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Sri Lanka was legally unreasonable.
8. It follows that the ground of review advanced does not establish jurisdictional error on the part of the Authority.

1. As the applicant has not established jurisdictional error in the Authority's decision, the application for review must be dismissed.
2. I will hear the parties as to costs.

I certify that the preceding eighty (80) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Skaros.

[1] SZVFW at [52], [59], [84], [133], and [134].