Adverse credibility findings were fairly and lawfully reached

Asylum and immigration – judicial review – Ghanaian national challenging the decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal refusing his application for international protection – assessment of credibility – applicable principles – standard of proof – benefit of doubt – background facts – adverse credibility findings – impugned decision – documentary evidence - confirmation that the Applicant’s account was complete, true and accurate – corrections to the questionnaire – interview - opportunity to explain inconsistencies - different explanations – incoherent, evasive, hesitant, demeanour - providing a new explanation - R.A. v. Refugee Appeals Tribunal - premise for the decision – Applicant’s return to Ghana – core claim – Tribunal did not him to report serious incidents – state protection - reasons for the decision are undoubtedly sufficient for the Applicant to understand the substantive basis for the conclusion on credibility - Applicant has fallen far short of demonstrating that the adverse credibility findings were other than fairly and lawfully reached by the Tribunal member who considered all available evidence – judicial review refused –