1503784 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 2907

1503784 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 2907 (15 June 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1503784

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Ghana

MEMBER:C. Packer

DATE:15 June 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 15 June 2018 at 5:17pm

CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection Visa – Ghana – Fear of harm arising from tribal dispute – Konkomba-Bimoba conflict – For of harm arising from being perceived as a wealth returnee – Country information does not support applicant’s claims – Decision affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 5K, 5L, 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33

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 (the delegate) to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant is a man aged [a particular number of years], born in [Country 1], but a citizen of Ghana.

3. The applicant first arrived in Australia on [in] December 2005, as a holder of a Student visa, and had travelled on a Ghana passport issued [in] 2005 and valid to [2015].

4. On 6 November 2013 the applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa.

5. On 6 February 2015 the applicant attended an interview with a delegate.

6. On 19 February 2015 the delegate refused the application.

7. On 17 March 2015 the applicant applied for review of the delegate’s decision.

8. On 15 June 2018 the applicant attended a Tribunal hearing.

9. The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether the applicant is entitled to complementary protection. A summary of the relevant law is set out in Attachment A.

10. The applicant’s narrative is centred on his fears of being harmed: by Konkomba tribesmen because of an ongoing conflict between the Bimoba and Konkomba tribes; because of a chieftaincy dispute between families in Bunkpurugu, and as he will be perceived to be a well-off returnee. After considering his evidence and the material before the Tribunal, I find that the conflict between the Bimoba and Konkomba tribes was resolved in 2014 and do not accept there is a real chance the applicant will be harmed by Konkomba tribesmen. I find that the chieftaincy dispute that flared up in 2015 to early 2016 has since settled and there is not a real chance the applicant will be harmed by either clan. I do not accept there is a real chance the applicant will be perceived to be a well-off returnee or harmed as a result. My assessment follows.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE, FINDINGS

Background

1. The applicant’s protection visa application provided some basic background information, and the applicant supplemented this with further details at the hearing. In the written application, the applicant stated that he was born in [Country 1]. He is a Ghana national however, and was raised in Ghana. His father is deceased, and he has a mother [and a number of siblings] in Ghana. 

2. At the hearing the applicant stated he has never sought to get [Country 1] nationality and is only a Ghana national. He said he last spoke to his mother a year ago and she was in [Country 2] although she was planning to return to Ghana. With the mother were his sister and sister’s husband. He has a brother and sister in Ghana but is unsure where they live, and a half-brother in [Country 1]. An aunt is in [another country] and occasionally the aunt and half-brother send him money. In Australia he does casual work such as in [a particular occupation]. He has completed [a particular] course and is in the process of getting [a particular certification].

3. The applicant’s protection visa application showed the applicant had a trip out of Australia between [a particular date in] June to [a particular date in] July 2006, and he stated he visited family in Ghana.

4. Country information from authoritative sources shows that Ghana (formerly the Gold Coast) is a nation in West Africa; with a southern coastline on the Gulf of Guinea. It borders Burkina Faso to the north, Togo to the east, and Côte d'Ivoire to the west. While English is the official language, another ten dialogues are spoken. As discussed at hearing, economically, Ghana achieved middle income status in 2010 and has one of the highest GDP per capita rates in West Africa. Ghana has abundant natural resources and is the second largest African producer of Gold (after South Africa). Other natural resources include oil, iron and diamonds and it is a major producer of coca in the world. Australia has resident accreditation to Ghana through the High Commission in Accra.[1] Ghana is a free, open and democratic society with civil liberties protected.[2] Since 1992, Ghana has held competitive multiparty elections that have led to peaceful transfers of power between the two main political parties. Ghana has a relatively strong record of upholding civil liberties, although discrimination against women and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) people continues. There is rule of law in Ghana and an independent judiciary although some weaknesses in judicial independence and rule of law persist, and political corruption presents challenges to government performance.[3]

   [1] Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) report Ghana, [ UK Home Office, Country Information and Guidance Ghana report, at 2.3.7 [ /uploads/attachment_data/file/565769/CIG-Ghana-SOGI-v1-February-2016.pdf]

   [3] Freedom House report, Freedom in the World 2018- Ghana, [ of claims

5. The applicant claims to fear persecution in Ghana mainly from the Konkomba tribe and a faction of his tribe/family. His key claims as summarised are:

   ·His home region is in the northern region of Ghana and he fears being caught up in the ongoing conflict there between the Bimoba and Konkomba tribes. His family and family home had been attacked several times in the past by the Konkomba, and had previously fled to [Country 2].

   ·He fears being caught up in the ongoing conflict there between factions of his tribe/family engaged in a chieftaincy dispute.

   ·During the chieftaincy dispute a friend had been killed in October 2014 and [a relative] killed in [2015].

   ·As a returnee he will be perceived to be well-off and extorted for money or abducted and ransomed. The authorities will turn against him. There is tension and corruption in Ghana and safety is not guaranteed.

   ·He does not want to live in Accra.

   Evidence

6. The evidence before the Tribunal includes the following material:

   ·the applicant’s Protection visa application form lodged on 6 November 2013, which includes typed reasons for seeking protection in Australia

   ·passport pages

   ·the Protection visa decision record (‘delegate’s decision’) dated 19 February 2015, which is the subject of this review

   ·the application for review, which has attached to it a copy of the delegate’s decision

   ·country information

7. The applicant was invited to a hearing on 5 June 2018, but an adjournment was granted on the basis that the representative was unavailable on that date. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments, on 15 June 2018. The representative did not attend. The hearing was conducted in English. At the start of the hearing I asked whether he was well and able to talk about his story, and he stated he was. During the hearing he appeared to fully understand questions and he gave coherent answers and explanations. I assess that he was competent to give evidence and had a full opportunity to put forward his story and arguments.

   Assessment of claims

8. The applicant claims to be a national of Ghana. I sighted his Ghana passport at the hearing and partial photocopies were made. All the available evidence, including the applicant’s oral evidence and familiarity with Ghana, supports his claim to be a Ghana national. Ghana is therefore the country of reference for the purpose of assessing the applicant’s protection claims, and the receiving country when assessing his claims against the complementary protection grounds. Having considered the material before the Tribunal including the applicant’s evidence given at the hearing, I accept he has the identity claimed.

9. The applicant’s Ghana passport expired [in] 2015 and at the hearing he said he has not renewed it. However, as discussed at hearing, he is a Ghana national and will have no difficulties getting a fresh passport or travel document to travel to Ghana. He last departed Ghana legally in July 2006 on his Ghana passport and has not committed any Ghana immigration offences, and as discussed at hearing, the way he departed will not cause him difficulties on his return.

10. He has been away from Ghana since 2006 and in Australia first as a student, and then unlawfully until he applied for Australia’s protection. However, he has not committed any crimes in Australia and as discussed fully at hearing, as he will be able to travel to Ghana on a Ghana passport, should he return voluntarily he will typically be processed like any other returning citizen. Should he be returned involuntarily the Ghana authorities will be aware he is a returnee who had attempted to overstay or migrate to Australia, but in light of the country information earlier cited, I do not accept that he will attract the adverse interest of the Ghana authorities beyond being questioned and soon released as the Ghana authorities have no interest in such overstayers. While he would return to Ghana as a returnee from the West, and as a failed asylum seeker who had sought Australia’s protection, and as a returnee who had been in Australia as a student and who had studied and worked in Australia, country information shows this would not lead him to face a real chance of harm. I find that when and after the applicant enters Ghana he will not face a real chance of harm from the Ghana authorities, the community or any other agents for these reasons, now and in the reasonably foreseeable future.

    His fear of the Konkomba tribe

11. The applicant’s narrative is centre on the historical and ongoing conflict between the Bimoba and Konkomba tribes in the northern region of Ghana. The tribal conflict is well documented with reports of the conflict appearing regularly through the years, culminating in several violent occurrences in 2012, 2013 and 2014. In light of the country information I accept that his family had in the past been affected by the tribal dispute and had fled to [Country 2] as he claims.

12. Nonetheless, I find that the applicant’s family while affected by the tribal violence had not attracted the ongoing enmity of any member of the Konkomba tribe or any other agents there. Indeed, at hearing he said his mother and other family had planned to return to the home area a year ago, and the reason he had not heard from them since is because reception is poor there. As well, the applicant’s evidence is that he had never been personally involved in fighting against the Konkombas, and had not been pressured to join the fighting. He did not flee his home area, or Ghana, so as to escape feared harm (such as threats, intimidation, physical or other harm) from Konkombas there. I find that he has not personally gained the ongoing enmity of any member of the Konkomba tribe or any other agents there.

13. Significantly, country information shows that since mid-2014 strong efforts have been made by the tribes and government to end the conflict, and this was fully discussed at hearing. A report in myjoyonline, 22 June 2014, Konkombas, Bimobas smoke peace pipe; ending three-decade conflict, stated in part:

    Konkombas and Bimobas in Nakpanduri have resolved to end their three decade-long protracted land dispute and leave peacefully to facilitate the development of the area. At a unification durbar at the palace of the Nayiri, the overlord of the Mamprugu traditional area, Naa Bohagu Mahami Abdulai Sheriga in Nalerigu in the East Mamprusi District of the Northern Region, chiefs and the youth from the two feuding ethnic groups chewed a ritual cola nut from the Nayiri to seal their unity and peaceful coexistence. Disagreement between the two ethnic groups in the area over the years have claimed several lives and destroyed properties worth thousands of Ghana cedi. With the ritual cola nut performed, the Bimobas in Nakpanduri have agreed to welcome back the Konkombas to resettle at Kpemale after they fled the community to neighboring areas following the conflict.

    Over 20 divisional and paramount chiefs from the Mamprugu Traditional Kingdom made up of the Konkombas, Mamprusis and Bimobas attended the historic ceremony which was witnessed by Members of the Northern Regional Security Council led by the Regional Minister Alhaji Mohammed Muniru Limuna, Members of Parliament from the area and the personnel from the West Africa Network for peace Building among others. A colorful display of the rich culture of the two ethnic groups was displayed as the two feuding chiefs joined the youth to dance to the throbbing beats of the gongon to demonstrate their commitment to coexist peacefully. Both the Konkombas and Bimobas chiefs in Nakpanduri described the conflict that engulfed the area as the work of the devil and recounted how the conflict had created so much distress in the area. They therefore do not hope to see that again in their lives. Naa David Kansuuk Chief of Nakpanduri who read a speech on behalf of the Bimobas said “the conflict has made them lose lives and properties and each one of them have learned lessons and the effects of conflict”.

14. A report in the Journal of Conflict Transformation & Security, April 2016, Conflict Prevention Strategies in Northern Ghana: A Case Study of the Ethnic Conflicts in Kpemale,[4] focussed on the “protracted interethnic dispute between the Konkombas and the Bimobas at Kpemale in the Bunkpurugu-Yunyoo district in the Northern Region of Ghana.” However, the report referred to the major occurrences of violence/wars in in 1984, 1986, and 1989 which resulted in over sixty deaths and several houses being destroyed. Since then sporadic violence still recurs in some communities, with seven major incidents of violence that occurred after 1995, and the report states that “The majority of the respondents concurred that the violence recurred on about 3-4 June 2012, on 6 March 2013, in May 2013, and from 3-5 April 2014.

    [4] [>

    Subsequently, a recent report by Abdul Karim Issifu of the West Africa Peace Ambassadors Network in Modern Ghana, From ‘Bloody Land’ To ‘Cleansed Land’: The Cola Peace Broker In The Nakpanduri War In Northern Ghana, 22 June 2017, stated in part:[5]

    With support from REGSEC, the Catholic Church and WANEP, on 21 June 2014 the historic expiration of the conflict was marked in the presence of the Nayiri (the King of Mamprugu blessed with divine wisdom, believed to possess ancestral powers, and whose decision is final and abided by all) in Nalerigu. At a unification durbar at the palace of the Nayiri- Naa Bohagu Mahami Abdulai Sheriga, chiefs and the youth from the two feuding ethnic groups chewed a ritual cola nut from the Nayiri and sworn to denounce violence and to seal their unity and peaceful coexistence. Chewing the ritual cola nut also means the Bimobas in Nakpanduri have agreed to welcome back the Konkombas to resettle at Kpemale after they fled the community to neighbouring areas following the conflict. A colourful display of the rich culture of the two ethnic groups was demonstrated as the two chiefs who have renewed their friendship joined the youth to dance to the throbbing beat of the traditional gongon drums to prove their commitment to coexist peacefully. A land that was docketed-‘bloody land’ has now become a ‘cleansed land’. Nakpanduri has resumed its economic adventure.

    Conclusion and Recommendations

    Ethnic and chieftaincy conflicts as well as land disputes are a major problem facing national development in Ghana. Particularly, the Konkomba and Bimoba ethnic conflict with underlying issues like chieftaincy succession and land resulted in hundreds of deaths and properties worth millions of Ghanaian Cedis destroyed. Since 1984, the conflict remained protracted till 2014 when the feuding parties themselves decided to end the violence by chewing a ritual cola before the Nayiri. Since the renewal of friendship, the two ethnic groups have not witnessed any violence, and Nakpanduri in the last two years remains peaceful.

    However, the efficacy of the cola is a matter of time and would be premature to judge just after two years of a renewed friendship. Nevertheless, with the Nayiri involved, there is hope for everlasting peace. Meanwhile, the national security apparatus should not relent and CSOs should continue the peacebuilding agenda in the area. Finally, Kusasis and Mamprusis leaders in Bawku, as well as Andanis and Abudus leaders in Dagbon should learn from the Konkomba and Bimoba leaders in Nakpanduri for sustainable peace in their area.

    [5] [>

    In sum, four years have passed since the Konkomba and Bimoba leaders in Nakpanduri initiated a peaceful resolution of the tribal conflict and country information shows this has led to a sustainable peace in their area. At hearing when this was put to the applicant, he responded that this conflict flares up and dies down regularly and argued that a peaceful resolution is not guaranteed as there is always tension between the tribes. However, as I pointed out, the reports show the tribal leaders had been determined to get and keep the peace with the formal peace treaty, and as well, other reports he had provided ostensibly showed there was a continuing police presence in his home area. In light of the foregoing country information I find there is not a real chance the applicant will be caught up in any tribal conflict in his home area and not a real chance he will be harmed by members of the Konkomba tribe, now and in the reasonably foreseeable future.

    His fear of the chieftaincy dispute

15. At hearing he raised a new claim to fear being caught up in the ongoing conflict in Bukpurugu between factions of his tribe engaged in a chieftaincy dispute. He stated that during the chieftaincy dispute a friend had been killed in [2014] and [a relative] killed in [2015], and he provided reports of the dispute and deaths. The applicant stated his mother is [from a particular clan] and he is also considered to be [part of that clan]. He stated [his relative] had been targeted and murdered because he had [a particular public position] at the time. I accept that these deaths occurred as the reports show.

16. However, as discussed at hearing, the country information shows the violence in the chieftaincy dispute had been stopped by February 2016 when police and security personnel restored calm in the town. A man who had set houses on fire was in police custody awaiting Court, assault rifles had been seized, and security beefed up at some locations within the town. As I pointed out at the hearing, almost two and a half years had passed and the police appeared to have responded to the violence with their strong and ongoing presence, and indeed, a year ago his mother had indicated she was returning to the home area as it was safe to do so. The applicant responded that when violence arose extra police would come to the area and restore calm, but the violence would reappear in the future if the police depart. But as I pointed out, based on the country information he had provided, the violence in the chieftaincy dispute had been stopped by the police and law and order restored, and ostensibly law and order had now been maintained for over two years, and I reject his speculation. As well, he had not been particularly involved in any of this and on his evidence had never been involved in any violence in Ghana. Indeed, as he discussed, [relative] had been targeted because he had been [in a particular public position].

1. While the applicant’s family had in the past been adversely affected by the chieftaincy conflict, and this led to people he knew being killed, law and order has been restored and maintained in his home area, and I find that this conflict now years in the past will not cause any harm to the applicant when he returns to his home area in the reasonably foreseeable future.

   His fear of being harmed as a perceived well-off returnee

2. As well, the country information shows there is not a situation of generalised violence in his home area. I acknowledge that he will need to exercise normal safety precautions and common sense when he returns home. But on his evidence he will return to Ghana to his family with little cash and ostensibly people in his local area will not perceive him to be a well-off returnee. I do not accept there is a real chance he will be targeted and harmed because of a perception that he is a well-off returnee. I do not accept that as a returnee and a mature man with his profile there is a real chance he will be extorted for money or abducted and ransomed or that the authorities will turn against him or that he will be adversely affected by corruption.

   Refugee criterion

3. In light of the above assessment, the Tribunal finds that in Ghana the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution now and in the reasonably foreseeable future, for the reasons he claims or for any reason. The Tribunal finds that in Ghana the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution now and in the reasonably foreseeable future, for one or more of the Convention reasons either when looked at individually or cumulatively. The Tribunal finds the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of Convention-related persecution, now and in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he returns to Ghana.

   Complementary protection

4. I considered whether on the evidence before me, there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Ghana, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. For the reasons set out above, I have not accepted there to be a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm if he returns to Ghana, now or in the foreseeable future. Section 36(2)(aa) refers to a ‘real risk’ of an applicant suffering significant harm. The ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition: MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33. It follows that I do not accept there to be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm from anyone for the same reasons as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Ghana.

   Overall Conclusion

5. 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).

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

7. 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

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

C. Packer
Member

ATTACHMENT A – RELEVANT LAW

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.

Refugee

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).

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.

Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.

There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.

Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.

Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.

Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.

Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.

In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.

Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.

Complementary protection

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’).

‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.

There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.

Mandatory considerations

In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken 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 relevant country information assessments 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.