[3][4] A delegate of the Minister for Immigtration and citizenship was not satisfied that the applicant's claims of homosexuality were credible and decided not to grant him a protection visa.

The Tribunal did not accept the applicant's claims to be a homosexual and found that there was no real chance that he would face persecution if he were to return to Pakistan.

The applicant successfully appealed to the Federal Court, where Moore J held that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error by reaching a conclusion on illogical and irrational grounds.

What was held to be illogical and irrational about the Tribunal's reasoning was that it assumed others in Pakistan would discover that the applicant was a homosexual during the brief period of his visit without making findings as to how that could be and that, in light of the applicant's explanation, there was no logical connection between his failure to apply for protection in the United Kingdom and his fear of persecution in Pakistan.

[1]: at [23]-[24] Heydon J held that as the Tribunal's reasoning was not illogical, it was not necessary to decide whether irrationality was a ground of judicial review.

[1]: at [67] & [71]  In this context the Tribunal did not accept the applicant's explanations for his visits to Pakistan and the United Kingdom was not illogical, whether or not all minds would share that thinking.

[1]: at [84]-[86] Gummow ACJ & Kiefel J dissented on the basis that the reasoning that the applicant was to be disbelieved, particularly in relation to his account of his life in the UAE, was an inference not supported on logical grounds.