The Administrative Appeals Tribunal showed “extreme illogicality” and its decision lacked “an intelligible foundation” when it rejected the appeal of an Indian asylum seeker seeking protection in Australia because of his homosexuality, the full bench of the federal court has found.
And the judge who heard his appeal – formerly accused but cleared of apprehended bias over his extraordinary record of refusing migration appeals – “fell into error” when he also rejected the claim in an ex tempore decision, without retiring from the bench to consider it, theguardian.com reports.
The asylum seeker, from a conservative Sikh family in India, argued he would be persecuted because of his homosexuality if he were forcibly returned to his home country.
In support of his claim of being homosexual, he tendered evidence from 16 witnesses, including men he had met on gay dating app Grindr and with whom he had had casual sex.
But the Administrative Appeals Tribunal did not believe he was gay, finding he was not homosexual and would not “pursue a homosexual lifestyle upon his return to India”.
