Refusal of international protection to Zimbabwean national was neither irrational nor speculative

Immigration Law – applicant was a national of Zimbabwe – arrived in State on 09 February 2019 – applicant sought international protection – application was refused – Tribunal refused appeal in June 2020 – respondents argued that applicant was afforded opportunity to comment on the material and responses were considered – Court found that Tribunal was entitled to find that his account lacked the sufficiency of detail expected of someone who suffered events alleged – Court found that Tribunal was entitled to reject the credibility of the applicant’s claim where it was found the credibility had been undermined by the vague nature of a claim of torture by unknown people at an unknown place – Court noted that a decision only need allow a party and a reviewing court to understand the reasoning process – Court noted that the Tribunal was entitled to have regard to the lack of medical evidence in assessing the account the applicant provided of having been subjected to torture over a period of time – Court held that a credibility decision should be read as a whole and the court should be wary of attempts to deconstruct an overall conclusion by subjecting its individual parts to isolate examination – Court rejected applicant’s application – Court found that the applicant had not satisfied it of any legal flaws existing in the factors relied on by the Tribunal in concluding that the credibility of the claim was undermined.