Tribunal lawfully assessed Pakistani national’s credibility

Asylum and immigration – judicial review – Pakistani national challenging decision of the International Protection Appeals Tribunal refusing him international protection – claimed to fear persecution as a bisexual man who had been caught on three occasions engaging in sexual relations with other men - legal principles – assessment of credibility - section 39 report – impugned decision - manner the Tribunal expressed itself – core claim – vagueness in his account – evasive - for a decision-maker to find that an account given lacked detail and was not cogent is something the decision-maker is entitled to have regard to in the context of assessing evidence and attributing weight to same - general credibility was not established - Applicant has not established that the Tribunal’s finding that the delay “seriously undermined his credibility” acted as some pre-determination by the Tribunal, as regards the Applicant’s general credibility in respect of his claim – Tribunal assessed all aspects of same in a lawful manner, looking separately at material aspects of the core claim as same related to the particular facts and circumstances – evidence as a whole – documentation - Tribunal made a lawful assessment of the credibility of the Applicant’s narrative – judicial review refused –