1420239 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4018

1420239 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4018 (16 June 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1420239

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Zimbabwe

MEMBER:James Jolliffe

DATE:16 June 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 16 June 2016 at 4:53pm

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Zimbabwe , applied for the visa [in] April 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] November 2014.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 31 May 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was not represented before the Tribunal.

   Relevant Law

4. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

5. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

6. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

   owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

7. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

8. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

   CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The Tribunal has before it the Department and Tribunal files relating to the applicant together with information from a variety of sources.

10. The issue in this case is the applicant claims to fear harm if he returned to Zimbabwe on the basis of his political opinion in that he supported the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwe.

11. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

12. In his protection Visa application which was lodged in April 2014 the applicant claimed that he had been born in Bulawayo in Zimbabwe. He claimed he was born on [date]. He claimed to be able to speak read and write English. He said he was of the Christian faith. He claimed that he had never married or been in a de facto relationship. He claimed that he had no right to enter or reside temporarily or permanently in any other country apart from Zimbabwe. He claimed to have arrived in Australia on a student Visa and to have arrived [in] March 2010. He claimed that he was issued with the Zimbabwean passport in [2008]. He claimed to have travelled from Zimbabwe via [Country 1] to Australia in March 2010. He claimed to have [Relative A] and [Relative B] living in Australia. He claimed his mother and father lived in Zimbabwe. He claimed to have military service obligations in Zimbabwe.

13. In his application for protection he provided reasons as to why he had left Zimbabwe and was seeking protection in Australia. He claimed that he left Zimbabwe because of violence and abuse and he came to Australia to study and out of fear of discrimination due to his political support for the “opposition party”. He claimed that his influence and involvement with the Movement for Democratic change in Zimbabwe MDC) made him fearful for his life and also cause people associated with him to be at risk of harm. He claimed that he was regarded as a traitor because of his involvement as an “activist” with the MDC. He claimed that he was “brutally bashed” close to his family’s home and that he was stabbed and hit with sticks and unknown weapons and suffered long-term injuries.

14. He claimed that on one occasion he was attending a “WOZA” because he was a youth spokes person in his community and he got targeted and seriously abused and beaten up. He claimed on that occasion he was easily identified because he was a well-known member of the community. He claimed that he was hit by the police and left with a [specific injury] and stab wounds on his [body]. He claimed he survived on that occasion because he got emergency medical treatment at a hospital.

15. He claimed he “ran away from compulsory military training” and claimed that he would be arrested and abused and subject to violence and interrogation because he fled and that he would also be at risk because he was a youth spokesperson in his community for the MDC. He claimed that he would also put his parents lives at risk and that they would also risk repossession of their property. He claimed his parents were successful business people and wealthy. He claimed that he had no rights of further study in Zimbabwe because he had attended a [certain type of] school and because he was a well-known public figure. He claimed that he would be abducted and killed and “brutally kidnapped and dealt with  the secret intelligence of Zimbabwe”. He claimed to fear harm in Zimbabwe from the military police and government officials and recruited youth workers of the ruling party. He claimed that he was at risk of harm because he had campaigned for the MDC. He claimed that he had become involved with the MDC because he had attended a [particular] private school in Zimbabwe and he had contact with [Mr C] who had provided [support to] the MDC and had [an association with Mr C’s family]. The applicant claimed that he was “well known to the elite white and black community anti- (Zanu- PF) current ruling party school”. The applicant claimed that as a result of his activities he was a target of the Bulawayo police force and that they “probably” have warrants for his arrest. He claimed to have been informed from a source in Zimbabwe that informers had been following the applicant in Australia on behalf of the Zimbabwean government and that they were getting information about the applicant’s history. He claimed to have the names of these people but could only provide the details verbally and claimed that he went back to Zimbabwe he would be arrested and discriminated against and treated as a traitor and that he would have no rights and be subject to arrest.

16. The applicant was interviewed by Department delegate in relation to his protection Visa application. The delegate declined to grant the applicant a protection Visa and was not satisfied that the applicant was entitled to protection in Australia. A copy of the delegate’s record of decision was provided to the Tribunal with the application for a review.

    The applicant had provided some media information to the Department. In summary the media information referred to the possibility that the Zimbabwe government would revive compulsory training for the Border Gezi youth training program. The media article was dated October 2013 and referred to the fact that the program had been stopped in terms of recruitment. Another media article referred to events in Zimbabwe in 2002 and 2003 in terms of the establishment of the National youth service training program. The media article referred to the training of a number of Zimbabwean youth by the end of 2002. The article also referred to the Zimbabwe government stating its intention to make the youth service training compulsory with access to tertiary education and public sector positions linked to participation. In summary the article indicated that the youth training program was in essence training a paramilitary force to support the Zanu-PF in its political campaign in Zimbabwe. The report in summary also referred to youths undertaking the training engaging in acts of political violence and also referred to sexual abuse of trainees while undergoing training. That article appeared to have been published on 8 September 2003. A third media article in summary referred to undertaking [certain] examinations as being illegal in Zimbabwe and that students should sit the local Zimbabwe educational exams. That article was dated [in] 2014.

    TRIBUNAL HEARING

17. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 31 May 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was not represented before the Tribunal. The Tribunal hearing was conducted in the English language.

18. The applicant confirmed his name and personal particulars. He provided the Tribunal with an International English language testing system test report which included his name and a photo. He forgot to bring his passport to the Tribunal hearing. He also handed up four articles in relation to country advice in relation to Zimbabwe. These included two country advice reports for the RRT and they were dated 18 February 2011 and 11 January 2011. The other two documents were a report prepared by the Canadian immigration and refugee board dated June 2006 relating to the national youth service training program in Zimbabwe and a report entitled political abductions in Zimbabwe 2000 to 2016 . That report was dated 9 March 2016. The applicant said he feared harm if he returned to Zimbabwe on the basis of his political opinion in that he claimed that he was a supporter of, and involved with, the Movement for Democratic Change headed by Morgan Tsvangirai (referred to as MDC-T). The applicant claimed that he had worked with the youth league of the MDC-T in Zimbabwe. He told the Tribunal that he was still a member of MDC-T and that his father paid his membership in Zimbabwe. He said he was not an active member of that organisation. He claimed to fear harm if he returned to Zimbabwe from double officials and government authorities and specifically the criminal investigation division of the Zimbabwe police and referred to the CIO in those terms. The Tribunal notes that was the description or title that the applicant gave to the CIO. The Tribunal notes that a document (entitled Political Abductions in Zimbabwe: 2000 to 2016 dated March 2016) the applicant provided to the Tribunal in support of his claims in terms of country information referred to the Central intelligence Organisation in Zimbabwe which appears to the Tribunal to have the acronym CIO. He claimed that he would be abducted and attacked and harmed and deprived of his liberty if he returned to Zimbabwe and that he would live in fear in Zimbabwe. He told the Tribunal that his mother and father are in Zimbabwe and that he is in contact with them about every two days. He said he also had [siblings] in Zimbabwe and he said he had a girlfriend in Australia. He said he had [Relative A] in Australia.

19. The applicant said that he lived with his [Relative B] in Australia and that he received support from [Relative B] and from his family in Zimbabwe that enabled him to live in Australia. He said he did not work and had not worked in Australia and had last studied in Australia in late 2011 he said he occasionally engages in gambling activity in Australia. He said he had been unlawfully in Australia for about two years after his student Visa had expired and that he had been detained by police authorities in [Australia] because of a [minor] issue and as a result came to the attention of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

20. He claimed that he had been a member of the  MDC-T in Zimbabwe from [year] to  2010 but had paid his fees from [an earlier year] and that he had mainly been involved with that party between 2005 and 2009. He said he thought the split between the MDC-T and the MDC-N had occurred in 2006 and he stayed with the MDC-T because he thought Morgan Tsvangirai had a better chance of getting into government in Zimbabwe.

21. He told the Tribunal that he had been involved in a social media account since he had been in Australia which he described as a [website] page that had essentially supported MDC-T and he claimed critical remarks about the Zimbabwean government were posted on that social media. He claimed that he ceased that activity in 2014. He claimed to have had between [number range] followers on that social media account and that the majority of those were in Zimbabwe. He said he started the social media/[website] page in 2011. He said the name of the social media page was “[name]” which he said translated to “[translation]”. He said he started the social media page after meeting [someone], who we described as a representative of MDC in [city]. He said his “mentality” in setting up the social media page was to keep or maintain his political image and his profile. The Tribunal understood that to be a desire by the applicant to continue to have a profile with followers in Zimbabwe. He said he ended the social media page at the end of 2013 or early 2014 because he was getting threatening responses and comments on the page. The Tribunal understood the applicant to claim those threatening entries came from Zimbabwe He said he deleted the social media page before he made his protection Visa application in April 2014. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had any evidence about this social media account of the applicant and he said that he would try to locate information about his claimed social media activities.

22. He told the Tribunal that he had not graduated from the [subject] course that he had been undertaking in Australia. He told the Tribunal that he had gone to college in [Suburb 1] and had met two men at the college in a general student area and who spoke to him in Shona. He said that occurred in late 2011. He said the two men knew his name and that the men did not identify themselves and they asked him about his social media activities and his Visa status in Australia and whether he had applied for a protection Visa. He said the two men spoke to him for about 30 minutes. The Tribunal asked why he spoke to these men , given the type of questions they were asking, and he said that he was curious about them but was also suspicious of them. He said he only met the men on one occasion. The applicant did not indicate to the Tribunal that he knew the identities of these two men. He only met these men on one occasion and this appeared to be the incident that the applicant had claimed in his application in terms of being subject to surveillance in Australia by Zimbabwean authorities. There was no indication by the applicant that he was able to provide any details to the Tribunal about the identification of those people despite his claims in his protection Visa application. He also did not suggest to the Tribunal that he was being followed by informants of the Zimbabwe government in Australia and only referred to this one incident. The only other incidents he complained of related to hostile comments being received on his social media page.

23. The Tribunal asked the applicant further questions about his involvement with the Movement for Democratic Change in Zimbabwean. He claimed he became involved with the MDC when he was still at school and started his involvement in [year]. The Tribunal asked him why he joined the MDC. He said that there was school influence for him to join and referred to his [teacher] [Mr C] as having been an influence on him. The applicant said he attended school with [a member of Mr C’s family]. The applicant claimed his father was also a member of the MDC. He told the Tribunal that his father had a good job [at Company name] his father also owned a [farm] which apparently was profitable. The applicant attended a [school] in Bulawayo. The Tribunal pressed the applicant further about why he was attracted to the MDC. The applicant said that Zimbabwe was in a mess and deteriorating and he was concerned about Mugabe. Overall the Tribunal found the applicant's explanation for his involvement with, and attraction to, the MDC to be vague and lacking in any significant detail. He said he after he joined the MDC in [year] he attended youth meetings about once every three months and he said in 2005 he had occasionally attended youth meetings but towards the end of 2005 he claimed he became more involved with the MDC. He claimed around that time that "Ward officers" (the Tribunal understood that to be a reference to electoral wards) had approached him and suggested that with the applicant's education and background he could take a higher role and have more influence within the MDC. He claimed that [Mr C] knew the ward committee and by inference that [Mr C] had suggested the applicant could take on a role with the youth group of the MDC. The applicant also used the term "elders" on occasions when referring to these Ward officers. The applicant during the hearing claimed on several occasions that his [sport] activities had given him a profile in Bulawayo. The applicant said in 2006 he had attended more youth meetings of the MDC and that towards the end of 2006 he was being trained by these Ward officers to speak at youth meetings and that during this period he had accompanied Ward officers as an observer to learn how to speak at youth meeting gatherings. He said he finished school at the end of [year]. He said in 2007 he had been playing [sport] and attending youth meetings in Bulawayo near his home. He said he spoke at these meetings as a youth leader. He told the Tribunal that usually less than 200 people attended these meetings and that those people were aged between 16 and 24. He said those meetings occurred once a fortnight. The Tribunal asked him for further details about his involvement in this role and he said that he had been appointed into this role by the elders of the ward committee. He had not been elected into that role and nor did he occupy any official or elected office with the MDC.

24. The Tribunal asked the applicant about what he said at these meetings. He said that the elders had told him to "come together and enlighten other youths" and that he should tell the youths that they were a "new generation and have to vote". The Tribunal indicated that it doubted that telling people that they have to vote would cause a difficulty for the applicant in Zimbabwe. The Tribunal asked the applicant for more details as it found the applicant was very vague in discussing the youth meetings and what he claimed he said these meetings. He told the Tribunal that he did not always know the people at the meetings. The Tribunal again asked the applicant to provide more details. The applicant then claimed that he told people that the Zimbabwean government was ill treating people and he claimed he made anti-Mugabe remarks but he provided no real details. The Tribunal because of its concern about the applicant's vague evidence and the lack of detail in his evidence asked the applicant if there were any records or any documents about what occurred at these meetings. He told the Tribunal that he thought there was evidence in Zimbabwe in terms of records and photos about meetings.

1. The Tribunal asked him about incidents of harm that he had faced in Zimbabwe. He said in 2007 there had been no physical harm to him. He said in 2007 he had been involved in distributing posters and T-shirts and he claimed he recruited youths to assist in putting up posters and he also said he attended youth meetings. He claimed in early 2008 he had been attacked after he had attended a meeting. He was unable to be more precise about the actual date of the attack. He referred to meetings occurring on a street corner near his home and that the police would break up these groups. He claimed that he had been walking home and a truck had pulled up and several people had attacked him. He said he had been beaten and hit with sticks and stones. He claimed the people who attacked him referred to the MDC and said the applicant was a" traitor" and that he was working for white people. He claimed his attackers were members of the Zanu-PF youth groups. The Tribunal noted that there were photos on the Department file that appeared to show the applicant having suffered some injuries on this occasion. The applicant said he had gone to a [medical] centre and received medical assistance. The Tribunal asked if there are any medical records. He said that there was a letter from a doctor about his injuries on that occasion and he believed that was in Zimbabwe as he had not supplied it in support of his application. He said that he had received a [specific injury] and been stabbed with sharp objects and claimed that he had received treatment for several hours at the medical centre on the night of the incident.

2. He told the Tribunal that the early 2008 incident was the only time that he had actually been attacked or harmed Zimbabwe. He did tell the Tribunal about another incident in 2007 when the police had been looking for a missing girl and he had been detained by the police on that occasion and had his hands tied and been slapped but was questioned by the police for about a day. He claimed that he was not taken to a police station but questioned by the side of the road. He said he had nothing to do with the girl going missing or any involvement with that issue and he said the girl had later returned.

3. He said after the early 2008 incident that he had gone to Harare and lived with [Relative C] because he claimed he was afraid to remain in Bulawayo. He claimed that he still continued to be involved with the MDC but not in any spokesperson role . He claimed that he still did things such as distributing posters and what he called "physical work" for the MDC. From his evidence this appeared to be involvement in distributing posters and other items for the MDC and he said he did that about once a month. His evidence about his activities in Bulawayo were that about once a fortnight he had been involved in attending meetings and doing other work in terms of arranging distribution of posters and T-shirts and speaking at youth meetings on a fortnightly basis. He then said that he relocated from Harare and had gone to live on his father's [farm]. He said the farm was about [distance] from Harare and about [distance] by road to Bulawayo. He inferred to the Tribunal that he was hiding out at the farm from authorities. The Tribunal however asked the applicant further questions about that aspect and in essence the applicant agreed that the authorities in Zimbabwe could have easily located him on the family farm had they wished to do so.

4. The applicant obtained his passport in Zimbabwe in [2008] and he told the Tribunal that it had been a lengthy process which had taken nearly a year. He claimed he had been asked to provide more information to obtain his passport and he had been asked to nominate his "chief" as part of the information that he had to provide. The applicant inferred that the delay in him obtaining his passport was in some way connected to his activities with the MDC rather than just administrative delay. He provided no evidence in support of that inference in terms of any questions that he was asked during the passport process which would indicate any concern by authorities about the applicant's claimed MDC activities. He told the Tribunal that when he had left Zimbabwe on his way to Australia he had been questioned about his travel movements and searched but then was able to travel without any difficulty. He said he came to Australia because he regarded [Country 1] was too dangerous and he had [Relative A] in Australia and he had also applied to study in [Country 2]. He claimed to have [a relative] in [Country 2] who had received political asylum. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had remained in Zimbabwe until 2010 after having obtained his passport in [2008]. The Tribunal indicated that was a significant period before he left Zimbabwe given that he claimed to fear harm in Zimbabwe. The applicant said that he had had difficulties getting his passport but the Tribunal noted that he had obtained the passport in [2008] and had come to Australia in March 2010.

5. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had come to Australia on a student Visa in March 2010 but had not lodged a protection Visa application until April 2014. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the reason for the significant delay in applying for a protection Visa. The Tribunal told the applicant that a delay of that magnitude suggested to the Tribunal that the applicant did not fear harm if he returned to Zimbabwe. The Tribunal told the applicant that the Department delegate's report indicated that the applicant had applied for a protection Visa shortly after he had been detained by police in Australia. The applicant said that he had been questioned by police because he had been travelling on a train with an incorrect ticket and he had been subsequently detained by police and contact had been made with the Department of immigration and border protection and the applicant said he had then been granted a bridging Visa. He told the Tribunal that he had not applied for a protection Visa earlier because he had been in Australia four years but he felt safe in Australia and was receiving money to support him in Australia from his family. He claimed that he had contacted the Department of Immigration and Border Protection on three occasions when he still had a valid student Visa to arrange an interview to enquire about protection. He claimed the Department had made appointments for him on three occasions but he did not attend any of the appointments. The Tribunal questioned the applicant as to why he had not pursued applying for a protection Visa on an earlier occasion and why he did not attend the interviews that had been arranged for him. He told the Tribunal that he felt safe and was getting money from home and in essence suggested that he thought he was safe. The Tribunal overall found the applicant's evidence about his reasons for the delay in applying for a protection Visa to be unconvincing and lacking in detail. After his student Visa had expired the applicant remained unlawfully in Australia for about a two-year period before applying for a protection Visa. As indicated he claimed he had approached the Department on three occasions when his student Visa was still valid but did not indicate or suggest that he had approached the Department further when he was unlawfully in Australia up until the point when he had been detained by police.

6. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he wished to comment on the findings by the Department delegate in relation to his protection Visa application. The applicant said that he thought that the Department delegate had formed an adverse view of him because he had remained unlawfully in Australia after the expiration of his student Visa and he claimed that the interview with the delegate was brief and by implication his claims had not been fully explored. He was asked why he could not relocate if he feared harm in his home area in Zimbabwe. The Tribunal noted that he had previously lived on his father's farm away from his home area but the applicant had claimed that he was in hiding when he was living on the farm but as indicated the Tribunal noted that it would have been relatively easy for the authorities to locate the applicant had they wished to do so. The applicant in essence claimed that he could not live safely anywhere in Zimbabwe.

7. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he would be at risk of harm now in Zimbabwe. He had been in Australia for about six years. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's evidence, if accepted by the Tribunal, indicated or suggested that he had been involved in low-level political activities in Zimbabwe and did not have any high profile. He said that he had previously had a profile because of his work with the MDC in Zimbabwe and because he had played [sport] and he also claimed that he had a profile because of his social media activities in Australia. The Tribunal's overall assessment was that the applicant struggled to respond to the Tribunal's questions about why he would now be at risk of harm Zimbabwe. The Tribunal raised its concerns in this regard and the applicant said that he had been a youth spokesperson but conceded that he did not occupy an official or elected position but he claimed he was a person of interest to authorities in Zimbabwe. He also claimed that a former [friend] now worked for the CIO in Zimbabwe and that former friend would know if he returned to Zimbabwe. He did not indicate why the former [friend] would pursue him other than to suggest that was because the applicant had a profile as an MDC activist in Zimbabwe.  He told the Tribunal that if he returned to Zimbabwe he was not sure where he would go to but that his family remained in Bulawayo. He told the Tribunal that no other members of his family in Zimbabwe had suffered any harm apart from claiming that one of his [relatives] had obtained asylum in [Country 2] and he provided no further details about that claim.

8. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his claims that he had had difficulty being accepted into university in Zimbabwe because of his involvement with the MDC and was also at risk  because he had not undertaken military training. He claimed he had not attended any training. He claimed in his application he had “run away” from the training but he said he had not attended any training. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his claim as to whether the military service he spoke about was compulsory in Zimbabwe. That aspect had also been raised by the Department delegate and was referred to in the delegate's record of decision. The applicant claimed the military service was compulsory and he was asked about how he became eligible for this service. He said that he had registered to undergo training because he understood that would assist him to get into university. However he also claimed that it was compulsory for people who were finishing high school to register and he said he had to register. He claimed that it was compulsory to attend the training in Zimbabwe between 2001 and 2007 and that it was compulsory if a person registered to do the training. He claimed that he was asked when he applied for entry at University about having not undertaken the training. He said he registered for this training in [year] when he was still in school. The Tribunal overall found the applicant's evidence about his claims relating to fearing harm because he had not undertaken this training to be vague and to an extent inconsistent. On one hand he claimed to be at risk of being wanted for not having undertaken the training but he agreed that he had been able to obtain his passport and was able to leave Zimbabwe in 2010 notwithstanding his claim that he was wanted for not having undertaken the training. The applicant's evidence indicated that it was known when he had applied for university that he had not undertaken the training but nothing had occurred to him as a result of not undergoing the training. The Tribunal notes that one of the documents provided by the applicant to the Tribunal referred to the national youth service training program and including a question as to whether that program was mandatory and if penalties applied and that was for the period between 2001 and 2006. The applicant agreed that the national youth service training program was the compulsory military training that he had referred to in his application and in his evidence before the Tribunal in referring to the Border Gezi. The document provided by the applicant which came from the Canadian immigration and refugee board and was dated June 2006 referred to the training and to information that suggested that a news article in May 2005 indicated that the government had planned to make national service mandatory for all school-aged children but that no information had been able to be found on whether those plans were implemented.  Another part of the report also indicates that the Zimbabwean Ministry of youth development and employment creation website refers to the training program as "voluntary" but that there was concern expressed in the article that some participants had been coerced or forced into the training program The Tribunal's assessment was that the article provided by the applicant did not support the applicant's claims about the mandatory nature of this training. The Tribunal also notes the media articles that were previously referred to and that had been provided by the applicant to the Department. One of those articles (dated October 2013) referred to the possibility of the youth training program being reintroduced and another article which was dated September 2003 referred to the government as repeatedly stating its intention to make youth service compulsory with access to tertiary education and public sector positions linked to participation. The Tribunal overall found that the applicant's claims and his evidence to fear harm for not having undertaken this training to be unconvincing.

9. The applicant said that his difficulties about gaining entry into university were a combination of not having undertaken the military training and because he had undertaken [certain] examinations at high school and not the Zimbabwean exams. He also claimed that he had been asked about political issues when he had applied for university. He said he had been intending to study [subject] at University. He said that he was on a waiting list for entry to university but that others got priority over him for entrance and that was because of the issues that he had raised for the Tribunal and in his claims.

10. He told the Tribunal in responding to a Tribunal question about any other issues that he wished to raise in support of his claims that he thought things would improve in Zimbabwe and that had been one of the reasons as well why he had not applied for a protection Visa application sooner in Australia. He also repeated his claims that he had approached the Department on three occasions when he had been on a student Visa to enquire about a protection Visa but had not attended any of the interviews that had been arranged.

11. The Tribunal referred to information contained in the DFAT country report for Zimbabwe dated April 2016. The Tribunal in summary referred to the recent political history of Zimbabwe and the power-sharing arrangement that had come into effect in February 2009 and which had ended in the July 2013 presidential and parliamentary elections. Those elections were said in the report to have been assessed by international observers as neither being fair nor credible. The Tribunal noted that the report indicated that the low-level of development in Zimbabwe acted as a significant push factor for external migration. The Tribunal referred to aspects of the report that dealt with the human rights framework in Zimbabwe as well as the security situation in Zimbabwe. The Tribunal noted that open political violence peaked during the presidential election run-offs in 2008 and its aftermath and that the political environment in Zimbabwe remains repressive despite the country experiencing a period of relative calm after general elections in July 2013.The report indicates that the level of politically motivated violence in Zimbabwe has declined significantly since 2008 and the report also deals with the splits that have occurred over time within the MDC movement. The report indicates that credible sources have told the Department that inter party harassment and intimidation currently largely targets low profile opposition party members and supporters and is most prominent in Mashonaland province and that Zanu PF uses its patronage network to manipulate the distribution of government funded food and agricultural products and that harassment increases during election periods and the threat of physical violence remains a feature of the political landscape in Zimbabwe and is most common during election periods and political rallies and particularly in relation to those activities perceived to be contrary to the interests of Zanu PF.

12. The report indicates that credible sources have told the Department that MDC-T members are subject to a greater level of official discrimination than members of other opposition parties and that members are subjected to occasional violence mostly from ZanuPF youth groups and supporters and that the Department assessment is that all MDC-T members face a moderate level of official discrimination and a moderate threat of violence from Zanu-PF supporters. The report indicates that there has been a substantial reduction in the number of extrajudicial killings in Zimbabwe since 2012 and that this is consistent with the downward trend in politically motivated violence since 2008 and after the 2013 elections. The Report also indicates that there has been a decline in the number of enforced and involuntary disappearances since 2008 but that there are ongoing and credible reports of politically motivated abductions in Zimbabwe. There are also reports of Zimbabwean security forces using torture to intimidate and obtain confessions from suspects.  The Report indicates that political manipulation and corruption operate to constrain the rule of law in Zimbabwe and that affects the ability of citizens to obtain effective state protection.

13. The Report refers to the Zimbabwean police force and that the Department has been informed that it is a highly partisan force in terms of supporting the Zanu_PF.The report also refers to informal militias in Zimbabwe and including the youth brigades and their establishment as part of the National youth training service and that members of these organisations continue to form key elements of the states control over the population. The report indicates that political pressure continues to constrain judicial and prosecutorial independence. The report also indicates that prison conditions in Zimbabwe are generally very poor. In terms of internal relocation the Department assessment is that opposition party members who relocate within Zimbabwe would not be subjected to adverse attention solely because of their place of residence and including in Harare and Bulawayo. The Department understands that opposition party members in Bulawayo are less subject to harassment and intimidation that elsewhere in Zimbabwe. The Department assessment is also that there are no major restrictions on internal relocation for MDC-T members. The report also refers to MDC-T membership documents and that the organisation lost its membership records in 2007 and that sources have told the Department that membership cards are used as a fundraising and recruitment tool rather than as a reliable form of identity or as proof of party membership. The report also indicates that MDC-T authorities are aware of in authentic membership cards and that in the past during the height of political unrest in 2008 membership documents were signed by the Secretary-General and that was used as verifiable proof of party membership but that party leaders acknowledge the potential for document fraud. The report also indicates that fraud is widespread and particularly in relation to some forms of documentation.

1. The applicant asked the Tribunal how it would approach document fraud issues given that the applicant proposed to provide further documentation to the Tribunal. The Tribunal indicated that it would critically examine any documents provided to it given the warning in the DFAT country report

2. the Tribunal referred to concerns that it had about the applicant's claims and his evidence. The Tribunal noted the significant delay of four years by the applicant in applying for a protection Visa in Australia. The Tribunal told the applicant that it had a concern that the applicant did have a well-founded fear of harm if he returned to Zimbabwe. The Tribunal referred to its concerns that had been expressed during the hearing about very vague evidence provided by the applicant in relation to his MDC activities and his activities on social media in Australia and his claimed role as a youth spokesperson with the MDC. The Tribunal expressed concern that the applicant had provided no medical documents in support of his claims about the attack that he said he suffered in early 2008 and had not provided any documentation in support of his claims about his MDC activities or about his claimed social media activities in Australia in terms of the MDC. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had left  Zimbabwe without any real difficulty and had also obtained his passport without apparent difficulty apart from the claimed delay of 12 months and the request for further information before it was issued. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's evidence was that he claimed he had not been really involved with the MDC after March 2008 in Zimbabwe. The applicant's evidence, if accepted by the Tribunal, was the applicant was essentially engaged in low level activities in support of the MDC in Zimbabwe and he had not been elected official of the organisation.

3. The Tribunal also noted that aspects of the DFAT country report were not supportive of a number of the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had been very vague in responding to Tribunal questions about why he could not relocate if he feared harm in his home area in Zimbabwe. The Tribunal also referred to the applicant's claimed social media activities in Australia. The Tribunal told the applicant that it would need to be satisfied that the applicant had not engaged in those social media activities solely for the purpose of strengthening his protection Visa application or otherwise it would disregard that conduct in considering the applicant's protection Visa application in relation to the Refugee Convention claims. The Tribunal told the applicant that it was concerned about his claims in relation to his social media activity and he had provided very vague information about those activities. During the hearing the Tribunal had raised concerns about other aspects of the applicant's claims and his evidence and those issues have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. They included that the applicant had remained in Zimbabwe after he obtained his passport in 2008 until March 2010. They also included the applicant's claims that he had been in hiding after the claimed assault incident in early 2008. The applicant referred to the Tribunal's concerns about vague aspects of his evidence and the Tribunal confirmed its concerns about the vague nature of much of the applicant's evidence in support of significant aspects of his claims. The applicant had been vague in relation to dates when incidents had occurred and in providing details about his claimed role as a youth spokesperson and about his social media activities in Australia.

4. The applicant was allowed until 14 June 2016 to provide any further documentation or submissions to the Tribunal in relation to his claims. The applicant provided further documents on 14 June 2016. Those documents were a medical certificate dated [June] 2016 from a doctor in Bulawayo referring to the applicant having been treated by that doctor [in] February 2008 for injuries he sustained after he was assaulted. The applicant also provided a MDC membership card. He also provided a letter addressed to “the Australian immigration”. It was undated and referred on its letterhead to the MDC in Bulawayo province. The letter referred to the applicant and said, in summary, that he was a member of the “MDC-T youth assemble” and that he joined in [year] and participated in different youth activities. The letter claimed that the applicant had become “too influential in 2006 to the end of 2008. During that time he became a public icon, since he had a background of learning at a renowned private school”. The letter in summary referred to the applicant having been selected to become a [local office bearer] responsible for political education and that he had raised a lot of awareness among youths and that that had brought him to the attention of the Central intelligence Organisation of the ruling Zanu- PF. The letter in summary referred to the applicant being attacked in 2008 by some unknown people and that he was accused in the attack of causing political disturbances and that his attackers wanted him to join the Zanu PF youth wing but he declined to do so. The letter in summary said that after that the applicant’s life was in danger and he migrated to safety. The letter said “we are convinced that if he comes back, his life will still be in danger”. The letter was signed by a person described as [official] (MDC-T offices). He also provided a  membership card and subscription schedule in relation to membership payments. He also provided a short hand written covering note with the documents.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. On the basis of the materials and information provided to the Department and available to the Tribunal the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a Zimbabwean citizen and that his identity is as he claims it to be. The Tribunal accepts on the basis of the information and materials provided to the Department and available to the Tribunal and without evidence to the contrary that the applicant does not have a right to enter or reside temporarily or permanently in any other country apart from Zimbabwe. The Tribunal accepts that Zimbabwe is the applicant’s country of nationality for convention purposes and is the receiving country for complementary protection purposes.

6. The Tribunal is not satisfied as to the applicant's claims that he has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returned to Zimbabwe based on his claims and his evidence to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is also not satisfied as to the applicant's credibility in relation to some aspects of his evidence and to some aspects of his claims.

7. The applicant's claims to fear harm are referred to elsewhere in these reasons. In essence the applicant claims to fear harm if he returned to Zimbabwe because of his  political opinion in that he claims to be a supporter of the MDC-T (in essence supporting Morgan Tsvangirai). He claims to fear harm on that basis and in essence the other issues he raised during the hearing and in his application all flow or relate to that primary claim. He claimed that he had been involved with the MDC-T since [year] and that he had paid membership fees back into [year]. He claimed his father still paid his membership fees when he was in Australia. He claimed he was still in school when he joined the MDC- T. The Tribunal found that the applicant was very brief and vague when asked to explain why he had decided to support the MDC-T. In essence he said his father had been a member of that party and that Zimbabwe was in a mess and he was concerned about Mugabe. He claimed that he was singled out by elders /ward members of the MDC because of his background and education and profile(which he appeared to link on several occasions to playing [sport]) and asked to become a youth spokesperson. He was not elected to that position but was put in that position he claimed by those elders/ward people.

8. The Tribunal found it difficult to get any significant detail from the applicant about this claimed role. He was very vague as to what he said at these youth meetings and which he said occurred every fortnight. He only provided some additional information after the Tribunal questioned him about what he said at the meetings. He claimed to the Tribunal that he had made anti-government statements. He claimed that he was also involved in distributing posters and T-shirts and recruiting other youths to assist in those physical distribution activities. He remained in Bulawayo during that time. He claimed in early 2008 he had been attacked by Zanu-PF youth activists and he had been beaten and assaulted and required some medical treatment after that attack. As indicated he had provided some photos of his injuries to the Department but provided no medical documentation in support of this claim at the time of the Tribunal hearing. He claimed after this attack he remained briefly involved in some MDC activities in Harare but that after that he left Harare and went to live on his father's [farm] in a rural area and in essence he remained there until he left Zimbabwe to come to Australia. He did not claim to have been involved in any other MDC-T activities after he left Harare in around March 2008. He had provided an MDC membership document to the Department but provided no other documentation in relation to any claimed MDC-T activities before the Tribunal hearing. As indicated the applicant provided further documentation after the Tribunal hearing and that documentation has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons.

9. He had obtained his passport in Zimbabwe in [2008] and had remained in the country until March 2010 when he came to Australia on a student Visa. He did not do any further study in Australia after the end of 2011. He did not apply for a protection Visa in Australia until April 2014 which was four years after he had arrived in Australia. As indicated elsewhere in these reasons he claimed to have contacted the Department of immigration and border protection on three occasions when his student Visa was still valid and had arranged appointments to discuss a protection Visa but had not attended any of those appointments. The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence and explanation for having delayed in applying for a protection Visa to be overall unconvincing and vague. In essence he told the Tribunal that he had felt safe in Australia and was getting income support from his family in Zimbabwe and was living with [Relative B] in Australia who was also supporting him in terms of accommodation. The Tribunal notes that he had remained unlawfully in Australia for approximately two years after his student Visa ceased and applied for a protection Visa after he had been detained by authorities in Australia in relation to a fare issue when he was travelling on public transport.

10. He claimed that he had established a social media page [in] 2011 after he came to Australia. He claimed he had about [number] followers on that page/social media site. He claimed that the majority of those followers were in Zimbabwe. He claimed he set up that social media site to maintain his political image/profile. The Tribunal found that the applicant struggled to give the Tribunal any significant detail about what entries or postings he placed on that social media site in terms of any activities that he claimed involved criticising the Zimbabwean government. He said he closed the site at the end of 2013 or early 2014 because he had been getting threatening comments in the inbox. He told the Tribunal he close the social media site before he applied for protection in April 2014. He provided no documentation in support of his claimed social media activities at the time of the Tribunal hearing. In a handwritten letter received after the hearing the applicant said that he had contacted the social media organisation [in] relation to the deleted account and was told that it could be a lengthy process to regain the account. The applicant provided no further information in relation to the claimed social media account.

11. He claimed that he was at risk of harm in Zimbabwe because he had registered for a form of military training which was in effect the national youth service training program in Zimbabwe but had not undertaken the training. He claimed he was wanted in Zimbabwe because of not having undertaken the training. He claimed that he had also been unable to obtain entry into university in Zimbabwe because of a combination of not having undertaken this training and having undertaken [certain] examinations rather than the Zimbabwe examinations. He also claimed that when he had attempted to enter university he had been questioned about political issues but gave the Tribunal no real information in support of that claim. He claimed that he had effectively gone into hiding Zimbabwe after he left Harare and went to his father's [farm] but at the same time he successfully obtained his passport and was able to leave Zimbabwe to travel to Australia without any significant difficulty.

12. He claimed that the training that he had not undertaken was compulsory between 2001 and 2007 but some of the documentation that he provided to the Tribunal did not support that claim. Another document provided by the applicant was a country advice to the RRT dated 18 February 2011. That advice in part refers to the activities of the  Border Gezi which is also known as the national youth service and was referred to by the applicant in his claims and in his evidence. That advice indicates that a number of sources including a 2010 UNESCO report suggests that national youth service training was mandatory for youths between 10 and 30 years of age but that there were (as at the date of that advice) fewer training camps and fewer resources and therefore likely to be fewer recruits than there were between 2003 and 2007. That advice also refers to an article in May 2006 in the “Zimbabwe Independent” that indicated that all the training camps had been shut down because of resource constraints and that the last intake of youths had been in 2005 and that there had not been any new recruits since then. The applicant did not leave school until the end of [year]. It would appear from an overview of the articles provided by the applicant that the training centres were officially closed in 2007 because Zimbabwe could not sustain the program and that there had been no new recruits since 2005. Another document provided by the applicant entitled political abductions in Zimbabwe and dated 9 March 2016 refers to government employees throughout the 2000"s being required to have passed through the youth training program and that graduates of the program made up the youth militias that terrorised the rural areas in 2008. The DFAT country report refers to the youth brigades as having been established as part of the National youth training service in 2001. The Tribunal has also referred elsewhere in these reasons to other media articles that the applicant provided in relation to the youth training program.

13. The Tribunal notes that if the applicant was wanted in Zimbabwe by authorities for not having undertaken this training that it is highly unlikely that he would have been issued a Zimbabwean passport in [2008] and it is highly unlikely that he would have been able to leave Zimbabwe in March 2010. The Tribunal assessment is that the information that has been referred to indicates the youth training program was not capable of being maintained by Zimbabwe because of the costs and that the last intake of trainees had been in 2005 and as indicated the applicant did not complete school until [after that]. In those circumstances the Tribunal does not accept that the information and evidence that has been referred to indicates or supports the applicant's claims that he would be at risk of harm and wanted by the authorities because he had not undertaken this training after he claimed he had registered for it in [year].

14. The only incident that the applicant claimed occurred to him in terms of actual violence was in early 2008. He was unable to precisely recall the actual time/date. His evidence about that incident is referred to elsewhere in these reasons. No other members of his family have suffered harm in Zimbabwe. The applicant did not claim that he had required any further or ongoing medical treatment beyond the treatment that he received on the night of the incident when he claimed he was attacked.

15. The Tribunal has considered the totality of the applicant's claims and his evidence and has also considered the DFAT country information report that has been referred to and has also considered the articles and information that the applicant provided to the Tribunal at the time of the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal accepts that the DFAT country information that has been referred to provides comparatively recent and credible information relevant to a number of the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal has also considered the documentation provided by the applicant after the Tribunal hearing.

16. The Tribunal has also considered its assessment of the applicant's credibility in relation to his claims. It has considered the totality of the applicant's claims and his evidence in this context. The Tribunal has referred elsewhere in these reasons to its concerns about the applicant's lack of detail in relation to a number of critical aspects of his claims and has also referred to his vague evidence about critical aspects of his claims. Those aspects have been referred to but include the applicant's claims about his activities with the MDC and his claims regarding his social media activities in Australia. The Tribunal was also concerned about the applicant's evidence in relation to his claimed conversation with two men in late 2011 at the premises of his education provider in [Suburb 1]. The Tribunal has referred to the applicant's evidence about speaking to these two men and notes the claims that the applicant made in his protection Visa application about being subject to surveillance in Australia by people associated with the Zimbabwean government. Given the context of the applicant's overall claims the Tribunal does not find it credible that the applicant would engage in a 30 minute conversation with two people who he claimed he did not know who were asking him sensitive questions about his Visa status in Australia and including whether he had sought protection in Australia and about his social media activities in Australia. The Tribunal did not find the applicant's reasons for speaking to these people to be convincing.

17. The Tribunal has also referred to the lack of independent supporting documentation as at the date of the Tribunal hearing in relation to a number of critical or core aspects of the applicant's claims. The Tribunal has also considered the significant delay of four years in the applicant applying for a protection Visa in Australia. It has considered his evidence in relation to that delay. The Tribunal has also considered that the applicant remained in Zimbabwe from [2008] when he received his passport up until March 2010 when he left Zimbabwe to come to Australia. The delay by the applicant in seeking a protection Visa application in Australia does not indicate or suggest to the Tribunal that the applicant feared harm if he returned to Zimbabwe. He claimed he contacted the Department on three occasions to arrange an interview in relation to a protection Visa application but failed to attend any of those interviews. Those aspects do not suggest to the Tribunal that the applicant feared harm if he returned to Zimbabwe. The Tribunal has also considered the documentation provided by the applicant after the Tribunal hearing.

18. The Tribunal after considering the totality of the evidence does not find that the applicant is a credible witness. As indicated the Tribunal has referred to its concerns about aspects of the applicant's claims and his evidence elsewhere in these reasons and after considering the totality of the applicant's evidence and his claims does not, as indicated, find that the applicant is a credible witness.

1. The Tribunal after having considered the totality of the evidence and the applicant's claims and its assessment of the applicant's credibility does not accept that the applicant was a youth spokesperson for the MDC-T in his area or ward in Bulawayo in Zimbabwe and does not accept that he was involved in attending meetings of the youth wing of that party or that he was involved in any physical distribution of posters or T-shirts or in recruiting youths to assist in those activities in Bulawayo or Harare or elsewhere in Zimbabwe. The Tribunal considers that the undated letter provided by the applicant by the MDC Bulawayo province does not overcome the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s credibility and his claims. The letter was overall very general in describing the applicant’s claimed role.

2. The Tribunal for the same reasons does not accept that the applicant was attacked in early 2008 because of his activities on behalf of the MDC-T. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant may have been involved in some physical altercation in Zimbabwe but does not accept that that altercation and any injuries he may have suffered as a result were because he was involved with the MDC-T. The Tribunal also does not accept for the same reasons that the applicant was in hiding from authorities or  Zanu-PF activists in Zimbabwe because of any MDC-T activities. The Tribunal considers that the medical evidence provided by the applicant after the hearing is consistent with the applicant claiming that he was involved in some physical altercation in early 2008 but does not overcome the Tribunal’s concerns that that altercation was because of any claimed activities on behalf of the MDC-T.

3. The Tribunal for the same reasons does not accept that the applicant engaged in any social media activities in Australia for the purpose of maintaining a political profile in Zimbabwe. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant may have established a social media site in 2011 does not accept that he did so to maintain any political profile with the MDC-T in Zimbabwe. The Tribunal also does not accept that the applicant was subject to surveillance in Australia by the Zimbabwean authorities.

4. The Tribunal for the same reasons does not accept that the applicant is at risk of harm if he returned to Zimbabwe on the basis that he failed to report for training with the Border Gezi/National Youth Service or that he is wanted by Zimbabwean authorities on that basis. The Tribunal also does not accept that the applicant was unable to gain entry to university in Zimbabwe because of any claimed activities on behalf of the MDC-T. The Tribunal accepts country information that indicates that university entrance in Zimbabwe for a person is assisted by the person having undertaken National youth service activity training and also having undertaken the local educational examinations rather than the [deleted] examinations.

5. The Tribunal as indicated does not accept as credible the applicant's claims that he engaged in a 30 minute conversation with two men at his education providers premises in late 2011 regarding his social media activities or his Visa status in Australia. The Tribunal does not accept that any social media activities that the applicant may have engaged in, in Australia would place him at risk of harm should he return to Zimbabwe either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The applicant's evidence about his social media activities was as indicated elsewhere in these reasons very vague and the Tribunal does not accept that he engaged in those activities in Australia in order to maintain a political profile in Zimbabwe or that he did so solely for the purpose of strengthening any protection Visa application. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faces a risk of harm on the basis of his claim that he [was friends with] a person who we now claims is employed with the CIO in Zimbabwe. The Tribunal notes that the applicant in his evidence referred to fearing harm from the criminal investigation division of the Zimbabwe police and referred to the acronym CIO in that context. As indicated that acronym, on the basis of country information, refers to the Central intelligence Organisation which is a separate and distinct organisation from the Zimbabwean police. He gave no developed evidence to the Tribunal as to why he would be at risk of harm on that basis in terms of his former [friend]. As indicated elsewhere in these reasons the applicant obtained his passport and left Zimbabwe without any significant difficulty to come to Australia. Apart from the one incident in early 2008 the applicant did not claim that he had suffered any difficulties in terms of harm in Zimbabwe or had any adverse dealings with authorities in Zimbabwe. That evidence does not indicate or suggest that the applicant faces a risk of harm from authorities if he returned to Zimbabwe either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal for these reasons also does not accept that the applicant’s family in Zimbabwe is at risk because of his claimed activities.

6. The Tribunal's overall assessment is that the applicant has significantly inflated his claims to fear harm in order to strengthen his protection Visa application. The applicant's evidence to the Tribunal indicates to the Tribunal that the applicant wanted to maintain a social profile in Zimbabwe, as distinct from a political profile, and that includes his claim that he was well known in Bulawayo because he played [sport] and had attended [a private] school and that his father has been successful in Zimbabwe. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has provided documentation in support of his claims that he was a member of the MDC. The MDC membership form that he provided is dated [in year] and he also provided a membership card which is undated. The Tribunal notes the information contained in the DFAT country report for Zimbabwe dated April 2016 which indicates that the MDC-T lost its membership records in 2007. In essence the applicant claimed he had joined the MDC in [year] and paid membership from [year]. The Tribunal notes that the MDC suffered a significant split in 2005 when the MDC separated into two factions. The applicant told the Tribunal he remained with the MDC-T faction. The Tribunal notes that the DFAT country report indicates that MDC-T membership cards are used as fundraising or recruitment tools rather than as a reliable form of identity or as proof of party membership. The Tribunal after having considered the evidence and its assessment of his credibility and the applicant’s claims is not prepared to accept that the applicant did join the MDC in [year] when he was still at school and before the split occurred in the MDC in 2005. The Tribunal after considering the applicant’s claims and his evidence and the Tribunal’s assessment of his credibility does not accept that his overall vague evidence to the Tribunal in terms of his claimed activities with the MDC indicates or suggest to the Tribunal that he was engaged in any activities with the MDC that would place him at risk of serious harm should he return to Zimbabwe either now or in the foreseeable future.

7. The Tribunal does not accept on its assessment of the totality of the evidence that the applicant was involved in any active work on behalf of the MDC-T. The documents provided to the Department by the applicant regarding his claimed membership of the MDC do not overcome the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s claims in relation to his membership of, and activities on behalf of, the MDC-T. The Tribunal notes that the undated letter,received after the hearing, provided on MDC letterhead from the Bulawayo province referred to the applicant having been selected to be a “[local office bearer] responsible for Political Education”. The applicant told the Tribunal that he had been selected to become a youth spokesman and had not referred to the title of this role in the terms used in the letter provided after the Tribunal hearing. The letter refers to the applicant having raised a lot of youth awareness amongst youths but did not provide any real detail about what the applicant was claimed to have done in this role. The Tribunal after considering the letter does not accept that that letter overcomes the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s claims and its assessment of the applicant’s credibility.

8. The Tribunal after considering the applicant's claims both individually and cumulatively does not accept on the basis of the evidence and materials and information before it that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm for a convention based reason if he returned to Zimbabwe either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

9. The Tribunal has considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Zimbabwe that he faces a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's claims and the evidence and available and relevant country information in relation to the applicant's claims. The Tribunal has referred elsewhere in these reasons to its assessment of the applicant's claims and the evidence and its assessment of the applicant's credibility together with available and relevant country information.

10. The Tribunal has considered the definition of significant harm contained in the Act as well as the relevant definitions contained in s.5(1) of the Act. The Tribunal does not accept for the reasons that have been considered and discussed elsewhere in these reasons that the applicant faces a risk of harm if he returned to Zimbabwe on the basis of his claimed political opinion of supporting the MDC-T or because he failed to attend the youth training or Border Gezi training program or that he engaged in social media commentary in Australia that would place him at risk of harm if he returned to Zimbabwe or that his family would be at risk of harm because of his claimed activities. The Tribunal after considering the applicant's claims and his evidence and the documents provided by him together with available and relevant country information that has been considered and discussed is not satisfied, for the reasons that have already been considered and discussed, that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Zimbabwe that there is a real risk that he will be subjected to any form of harm that would be the result of an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on the applicant for the reasons specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of s.5(1) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer harm that would involve the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, either physical or mental, or pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, intentionally inflicted on the person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature, such as that would meet the definition of cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment in the Act. The Tribunal is also not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant would suffer such harm as to meet the definition of degrading treatment or punishment in the Act which refers to an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable. The Tribunal is also not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer arbitrary deprivation of his life or the death penalty.

    Overall Summary

11. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

12. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

13. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

    DECISION

14. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

    James Jolliffe
    Member