1503784 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Ghana, sought a Protection visa in Australia, claiming a fear of persecution arising from tribal conflict between the Konkomba and Bimoba tribes in Ghana's northern region, a chieftaincy dispute within his own tribe, and the risk of extortion or abduction as a perceived "wealthy returnee." The respondent opposed the application, submitting country information suggesting that Ghana is a democratic society with a functioning rule of law and that the applicant's claimed fears were not substantiated by current country information. The case was heard by C. Packer, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, as defined by the *Refugee Convention*, or whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia to Ghana, the applicant would suffer significant harm, thereby engaging Australia's complementary protection obligations. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against the available country information and the applicant's own evidence to determine if he faced a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution or significant harm.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on assessing the credibility and substance of the applicant's claims in light of extensive country information. Regarding the tribal conflict, the Tribunal accepted that the applicant's family had been affected in the past but found that the applicant had not personally gained the enmity of any party and that significant peace-building efforts since mid-2014, including a formal peace treaty between the Konkomba and Bimoba tribes, had led to a sustainable peace in the area. Similarly, concerning the chieftaincy dispute, the Tribunal found that law and order had been restored by police and security personnel by February 2016, and this calm had been maintained for over two years, negating the applicant's speculative fears of future violence. The Tribunal also rejected the claim of being a perceived wealthy returnee, noting that the applicant would return with little cash and that country information did not support a real chance of him being targeted for extortion or abduction.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa. It concluded that the applicant did not face a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution for a Convention reason, nor did he face a real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection provisions. Consequently, the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a Protection visa under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).