1507818 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 3363

1507818 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 3363 (6 February 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1507818

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Liberia

MEMBER:Nicole Burns

DATE:6 February 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 06 February 2019 at 5:07pm

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Liberia – particular social group – former police officer – investigation of Charles Taylor’s economic crimes – race – Krahn ethnicity – imputed political opinion – perceived Samuel Doe supporter – member of National Democratic Party of Liberia – credibility issues – Ministerial Intervention requested – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65, 91R, 417, 424A, 438, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES

CSV15 v MIBP [2018] FCA 699
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 and Border Protection 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 Liberia, applied for the visa on 24 September 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 22 May 2015.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 19 July 2018 and 26 July 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s cousin ([Ms A]), his friend ([Mr B]), a representative from the Liberian community in [Australian State 1] ([Mr C]) and a representative from [Community Organisation 1] in [State 1] ([Mr D]). As well, a former police officer from Liberia ([Mr E]) gave evidence over the telephone from [Australian State 2], where he resides. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Liberian English and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearings.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

5. 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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’).

9. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of 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.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Background and nationality

10. The applicant came to Australia [in] October 2013 as the holder of a Prospective Spouse visa and a Liberian passport and claims to be a national of Liberia. The delegate noted some concerns about the applicant’s claimed identity however ultimately accepted he was a national of Liberia. The applicant alleges that his ex-wife in Australia ([Ms F]) kept his Liberian passport when they separated. On review the applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of his Republic of Liberia birth certificate and the biodata page of a Republic of Liberia passport, issued [in] 2018. On this basis the Tribunal finds the applicant is a national of Liberia and has assessed his protection claims accordingly.

11. The issue in this case is whether Australia owes the applicant protection obligations under the Refugees Convention or he otherwise meets complementary protection provisions. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    REFUGEE ASSESSMENT

12. The applicant’s initial protection claims are set out in his Protection visa application and a typed statement that accompanied it titled ‘My Story’. In summary in his visa application the applicant claimed to have been a police officer in Liberia, appointed by the Samuel Doe[1] government and was forced to flee after Charles Taylor[2] came to power. He claimed to have been imprisoned for no reason. He fears those he personally investigated in the past who are now in power, including [Mr G]. He expanded upon these claims in his typed statement, claiming in summary that:

    a.He worked [as a police officer] from 1989 to 2000 in the economic crime area.

    b.He left Liberia [in] January 2000 because his life was at risk and he was under constant harassment by armed men. His home was regularly visited by security officers who accused him of collecting statements from their bosses, who were accused of economic crimes against the government.

    c.He investigated a coup attempt against the Liberian government and took statements from the plotters. One of the culprits involved is now a leading public figure in Liberia. When they came to power a witch-hunt for those involved in the investigation began. The applicant decided to remain in exile indefinitely.

    d.His work mate, [Mr H], was killed mysteriously: believed due to his involvement in the same investigation. The government did not investigate [Mr H]’s death.

    e.The applicant was hunted by individuals linked to the authorities and the witch-hunt was compounded by the fact that he comes from the late President Doe’s Krahn tribe. When Charles Taylor took over they started a systematic witch-hunt of civil servants who had served under Samuel Doe and those of his kinsmen.

    f.The same process of witch-hunting continued when the current president took over.

    g.He believes the individuals he investigated in the past might decide to prosecute or kill him if he returns as revenge.

    [1] President of Liberia from 1980 to 1990, < President of Liberia from 1997 to 2003, <

Material provided in support of the visa application included a copy of the applicant’s Liberia National Police (LNP) card dated [in] 1995.

The Tribunal notes the delegate found the applicant was not owed protection in Australia with respect to Liberia because they found that he had a right to enter and reside in another country given Liberia is a member of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision record to the Tribunal on review.

The applicant’s representative has submitted to the Tribunal the following documents in support of the applicant’s case:

·A letter from [Dr I] dated 6 July 2018 who states that the applicant presented with a history of recurrent [symptoms] which started after he was stabbed in [a specified body part] during the Liberian war. He also has [an injured Body Part 1] which causes him discomfort.

·A letter from [senior office bearers of Community Organisation 1 in State 1] dated [June] 2018 (containing a number of signatures) advising that the applicant is an active and hardworking member of their organisation, described as ‘a social, cultural and welfare group’. He also states that the applicant was appointed as [a] representative [in] 2017 on the Liberian community leadership board.

·Copies of photographs of the applicant’s [Body Part 2], [Body Part 3] and [Body Part 4] showing scars and [injuries].

·A letter of support from [Ms A], the applicant’s cousin, dated 29 June 2018. In it she states that she left Liberia when the civil war broke out for [Country 1] in 1990; the applicant was working with the LNP; she had heard from the applicant’s uncle that Charles Taylor’s rebel soldiers wanted to kill him so he went into hiding; she heard he received constant threats and harassment by Charles Taylor’s men headed by [General J]; and the applicant arrived in [Country 1] in 2000 with his brother and they lived together in a refugee camp until she came to Australia in 2006.

·A letter of support from [Ms K], the applicant’s current partner, dated 29 June 2018.

·A copy of a letter from [Mr L], [community elder], dated 2 March 2016. In it he confirms that the applicant was a resident of the [community] for over 30 years; he was employed by the [LNP] prior to his departure in 1999; he left Liberia due to constant harassment, intimidation, detentions, threats and bodily attacks orchestrated by [General J], based on tribal lines; in 1998 the applicant was placed on elimination or death list by Mr Taylor’s regime intent to kill famous Krahn tribe members; [in] September 1998, 150 tribe members were murdered in Monrovia and environs and thousands fled and 25 former President Doe regime officials and military officers were arrested, charged with treason and jailed; since then the applicant abandoned his residence and was in hiding until he went to [Country 1] in 1999; and his family and some close associates were constantly intimidated, harassed and threatened when they encountered those in pursuit of him (the applicant).

·A statutory declaration dated 21 March 2016 from [Mr E], a former police officer with the LNP. In it he states that he met the applicant in 1995 when he was working [in a specified division]. He said at the time the applicant was working [in Monrovia] responsible for sharing intelligence and investigative information about crimes of a financial nature. He states the applicant’s role was as an ‘operative/investigator’.

·A profile of [General J].

·Copies of extracts of Liberia’s Immigration Act.

·A letter from [Mr M], [senior office bearer of Community Organisation 2] dated 3 July 2018 confirming that the applicant has been a member since 2015.

·A letter from [Mr N] and [Mr O], [senior office bearers of Community Organisation 3] dated 23 July 2018. In it they state that Krahn have been marginalised since Samuel Doe came to power in 1980; they are being prosecuted in Liberia; family members are incarcerated without legal process and go missing; the applicant is a member of the Krahn tribe and active member of the organisation; and that they believe he will not be safe in Liberia.

·A letter from [a charity organisation] confirming that the applicant has been a volunteer with their shops program since June 2017.

·A letter from [Mr P], [church pastor] confirming that the applicant has attended their church since March 2015.

·A letter from [Mr B] dated 30 June 2018. In it he states that the applicant is a [childhood friend]; the applicant is a [member of] the Krahn tribe; after the applicant completed high school he worked with the LNP up to the civil war; [in 1996, the applicant was detained by General J and Mr Q in a police station] because he was Krahn and a government official (state security); [General J] was about to execute the applicant [when another police officer, Mr R,] arrived at the police station and rescued him; in 2000 the applicant fled to [Country 1] because [General J] set ablaze his [aunt]’s compound threatening to kill [them]; the applicant’s aunt’s house is now occupied by some rebels; and [General J is now bodyguard for Mr G].

Also provided was a selection of country information from various sources including about human rights issues in Liberia and copies of photographs of recent violence against student demonstrators there.

The applicant also submitted to the Tribunal a typed response to concerns raised by the delegate as set out in the decision record, including explaining why he does not have a right to enter and reside in [Country 1] or other ECOWAS member states, as found by the delegate. He also reiterates and expands upon his protection claims with respect to Liberia and provides a ‘brief outline of his story’ under date subheadings from October 1992 to October 2009.

The applicant states in his typed submission to the Tribunal that he fears persecution on return to Liberia because he is from the rural minority ethnic Krahn group, to which former president Samuel Doe belonged; after being removed from government in 1983 for embezzling $1 million Charles Taylor fled to the US; because the applicant was assigned to investigating crimes of a financial nature his name was going to be significant in relation to investigating Charles Taylor; when Taylor returned to Liberia and gained power (becoming president in 1997) he was to target those of Krahn ethnicity and anyone associated with the investigation of his financial crimes; in September 1998 Taylor’s National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) foiled a coup attempt by David Roosevelt Johnson (a Krahn who led a rebel group): the applicant was falsely accused of being involved with this coup attempt; [General J] was [one of the] generals linked to massacres in Liberia; and [General J is currently politically influential].

At the Tribunal hearing the representative submitted that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Liberia on the grounds of:

·His Krahn ethnicity

·Membership of a particular social group of civil servant

·As a former policeman.

At hearing the applicant gave oral evidence to the Tribunal about his background, reasons for leaving Liberia and fears upon returning there now, summarised as follows.

The applicant – who is [age] – said he was born in Monrovia – the country’s capital – and lived with his parents in [Location 1], Montserrado County before he left Liberia in January 2000 to go to [Country 1]. He moved to [Location 1] in April 1992 from Monrovia following conflict that erupted – called the Octopus war – launched by Charles Taylor who wanted to take over Monrovia by force. During that time [General J] came to his parents’ house and insisted he see any Krahn people who had worked for the government: they (including the applicant) were then beaten whilst [General J] and others shot bullets into the air. The applicant fled when an ECOWAS patrol came by. The applicant took refuge at his parents’ house in [Location 1] until October 1993, before returning to his home in Monrovia.

The applicant said he was enlisted into the LNP in [1989]. To join the police force he had to undertake an aptitude test then physical training at an academy in Mosaralo County for two weeks. He did not have to spend much time there because of his [relative]’s – who had recommended him to join the LNP – influence. His first position was [Position 1], then [Position 2] (as reflected on his LNP identification card provided). He said that he worked [in a specified role] that dealt with cross-border crime: for example money laundering and crimes against the state. [When] asked if he was involved in any specific investigations the applicant replied [‘yes’]. The applicant said in 1989 their first major challenge came when the late president announced that Liberia was under attack with rebel forces infiltrating the country. [At] meetings with the top officers the applicant would [undertake specified duties]. The applicant said a colleague – [Mr H] – who was heavily involved in the investigation at the [time], was later killed sometime after 2000 (when the applicant was in [Country 1]).

[In] 1996 the applicant said when he was sitting at the front of his parents’ house a police commander called [Mr Q] and [General J] saw him and told him he should fight given the war had started. He was then kicked and blamed for supporting the conflict because he was Krahn. [He was beaten and badly wounded by the men]. Bleeding profusely, the applicant said he was put into the back of a pickup truck and taken to [a police station], placed in a cell without any treatment (he was unconscious): this was around 5pm. At around 12am a senior [police officer] called [Mr R] arrived: the applicant told him that [Mr Q] and [General J] had brought him there. [Mr R] ordered the cell guard to release the applicant, given they had worked together before and [Mr R] was a close friend of the applicant’s former boss. When asked why he was targeted by [Mr Q] and [General J] in this incident, the applicant said because he had worked under (former president) Samuel Doe and was an [investigator] looking into Charles Taylor’s embezzlement of a million dollars from the government in the past.

The applicant said after [Mr R] secured his release from a police cell in [1996] he went to his parents’ house in [Location 1]. He also spent some time at his uncle’s house. He returned to work [in] December 1996 at police HQ in Monrovia, where he was before. [Mr Q], who also worked there, saw him and threatened him. The applicant told his boss what had happened and that the threats were continuing and his boss told him not to listen to [Mr Q].

The applicant told the Tribunal that in February 1999 he was interrogated by police after they had heard that David Roosevelt Johnson – also a Krahn – wanted to overthrow Charles Taylor. He spent about a week in a prison cell before being [released]. When asked why he was let go if suspected of being part of the conspiracy (to overthrow Charles Taylor’s government) the applicant said he does not know. The applicant went to hospital for treatment given the poor prison conditions after his release, and then went home for a few weeks before returning to work.

The applicant said from [March] 1999 he received constant harassment from [General J] and [Mr Q]. For example they would bang on his door to his house in Monrovia at 2am, and other times they would arrive with a group of men and shoot bullets into the air. [In] March 1999 they arrived at his house, forced open the door but were unable to see the applicant because he hid under the bed. From then until he left the country in January 2000 the applicant said he continued to go to work at LNP HQ but did not go home, staying at different locations. His brother – who stayed at his house – reported that they often came looking for him. Because of the constant harassment the applicant knew he was on their list to eliminate him. Noting that [Mr Q] knew where he worked, the applicant said Charles Taylor’s death squad did not operate during the day. He said he and others were considered enemies by the likes of [Mr Q] because they had worked for the previous government and did not buy into their idea of war and violence. The applicant was an enemy because of his Krahn ethnicity, having worked for Samuel Doe, and because of his investigation into [Charles Taylor].

1. The applicant told the Tribunal in 2000 his parents joined his brother in [Country 2] who had moved there in 1980 and had become a [Country 2] citizen. His parents remained in [Country 2] for many years. His father died in 2006 and his mother in 2017: she had returned to Liberia in 2015 because she was missing her children. The applicant said he has [a number of siblings]. One brother died during the war (he thinks around 2003), killed by one of Charles Taylor’s [generals]. The applicant said his brother had lent money to the general and after he requested the money back he was ambushed and killed: he suspects because his brother was Krahn and because the applicant was not in Liberia, in addition to not having to pay back the money. When asked why he thinks his brother’s death had anything to do with him, the applicant said he does not know. Of his remaining [brothers] – the applicant said both currently live in Liberia. [Brother S] is in the police force and lives in [County 1] after returning to Liberia in around 2016 from [Country 1], where he fled to with the applicant in 2000. [Brother T] lives in Monrovia and has a shop: he never left the country. [The] applicant’s sisters live in Monrovia. One of his sisters resided in [Country 1] from 2002 to 2009 before returning to Liberia.

2. The applicant said he lived in [Country 1] from 2000 until he came to Australia in October 2013. He claims to have returned to Liberia once from [Country 1]: in 2012, with [Ms F] who was visiting from Australia and wanted him to visit her parents in Monrovia for their marital rites. He said they stayed in Liberia for around two weeks and he did not set foot outside her parents’ home in Monrovia. He used a laissez-passer travel document to enter Liberia, issued by the Liberian embassy in [Country 1] in the name of ‘[Alias 1]’ which meant he passed through the airport unnoticed. He said he flew from [City 1, Country 1] to Monrovia and put 10 dollars in his laissez-passer at the airport. He had no problems then, or when he left Liberia around two weeks later.

3. The applicant said he left Liberia initially in 2000 holding a laissez-passer issued by the foreign ministry also using the name of ‘[Alias 1]’, and crossed the border via a river into [Country 3] at night, with his brother. When asked if he had any problems obtaining the laissez-passer at the time, the applicant said he did not because he had a friend at the foreign ministry. From [Country 3] the applicant and his brother went straight to [Country 1]. When asked what he did there, the applicant said he used to undertake [volunteer work]at the refugee camp where he stayed.

4. The applicant met [Ms F] in 2004 at the refugee camp in [Country 1]. She came to Australia in 2006 on a humanitarian visa and they met up again in [Country 1] in 2011 before lodging a prospective marriage visa. They married in Australia [in] February 2014 and have since separated. At hearing the applicant said he has a new partner who is an Australian citizen, originally from Liberia.

5. The applicant said he has three children, who all currently reside in Liberia. A son born in [year] and two daughters: one born in [year] and another daughter born in [year]. Their mother left them after his second daughter was born. He left his children in [Location 1] with his sister when he left Liberia for [Country 1] in 2000. In 2002 he brought his son and one daughter to [Country 1] where they lived with him in the refugee camp until they returned to Liberia in 2009. Currently his son and one daughter (and her [child]) live together on family property [at Location 1]. His son works for a [company in Industry 1]. His other daughter is married, with [number] children, and lives in Monrovia.

6. The applicant said his son has told him that [Mr Q] has asked about him three or four times in Monrovia: specifically about when he was to return. The last time this occurred was in June 2018. When asked why [Mr Q] would still be interested in the applicant given the passage of time and the end of the war, the applicant said that secret killings are going on and people are calling for warlords to be persecuted. He referred to articles he has provided about war crimes that people are requesting should be dealt with in The Hague and pictures of a number of warlords who are still in positions of trust in Liberia. He said [Mr Q] is still in the police force in Liberia and [General J] is [a government official]. He said in their mind people like him are still a threat to them; they hold positions of trust; and no one can do anything to them because they are connected to the present leadership.

7. When Samuel Doe was president in Liberia the applicant said that he was a member of his party – the National Democratic Party of Liberia (NDPL) – from 1988. When asked if he did anything as a member, the applicant replied ‘no’ and said he just voted for them. He said that when the war started in 1989 people were killed because of their party affiliation. The applicant said he was targeted by [Mr Q] and [General J] for a number of reasons, including his party affiliation.

8. The applicant said during the last war (2003) his aunt’s property in Monrovia (which was in his name), was burnt down and the land was taken over by [a named politician], who has subsequently built a house there. He said he found this out when he was in [Country 1] around 2006 or 2007. When asked if he has tried to reclaim the land, the applicant said he asked his brother but all efforts were futile, noting that ‘we’ are not in power. (His aunt died in a car accident in 1987 and her late husband was living there in 2003.)

9. At hearing the Tribunal noted that there is information – some of which could be potentially adverse to the applicant’s case – contained on the Departmental file and that further information was provided to the Tribunal (via the Department) during the review phase which is subject to non-disclosure certificates under s.438 of the Act. After having regard to the reasons provided in the certificates as to why it is in the public interest not to disclose the information to which the certificates are subject, the Tribunal was of the view that two of the three certificates were valid[3] because the information was given in confidence. (The other certificate[4] the Tribunal considered invalid because the only reason provided for the non-disclosure related to an internal working document of the Department.) The Tribunal indicated it would send copies of those certificates to the applicant after the hearing along with a letter inviting his comments or response to the potentially adverse information to which the certificates (including the invalid one where relevant) are subject pursuant to s.424A of the Act.  A copy of the letter[5] is attached. The applicant provided a response to the Tribunal in the form of a written statement.[6] The Tribunal has considered the information and the applicant’s response to that information where relevant when making its findings on his specific claims, assessed below. The Tribunal notes some of that information – for example, about providing a different name and date of birth to [Country 2’s] authorities in the past, or that the applicant has been dishonest, or that he was involved in the provision of false passports and visas – raises broader credibility concerns but is not directly relevant to the applicant’s protection claims.

   [3] That is, the certificates issued on 22 May 2015 and 22 May 2017.

   [4] Also issued on 22 May 2015

   [5] Dated 21 August 2018

   [6] Dated 4 September 2018

   Fears as a former policeman

10. The applicant claims to have worked as a police officer in Liberia from 1989 to 2000 (appointed under former president Samuel Doe from the NDPL), specifically [investigating economic crimes], and claims he was threatened and harmed by people aligned to Charles Taylor (specifically [General J] and [Mr Q]) during this period. The applicant claims he was an enemy of the likes of [General J] and [Mr Q] because of his Krahn ethnicity, because he had worked under Samuel Doe and was a member of Samuel Doe’s NDPL and because of his investigation into Charles Taylor’s [embezzlement case].

11. The Tribunal has some concerns about the applicant’s claims to be a police officer in this period for a number of reasons, including because the LNP identification card he provided to the Department contains a number of irregularities, as set out in the delegate’s decision record, a copy of which the applicant provided to the Tribunal on review.[7] At hearing the applicant said when the card was issued Liberia did not have computers and the card was written with a typewriter then laminated, which could explain the errors. In terms of a different signature, in his written statement provided to the Tribunal the applicant states that it is not unusual for someone’s signature to change over an 18-year period. He provided various explanations about the other irregularities, including the low literacy rate in Liberia when the card was issued in 1997; the card number being manually altered by the clerk at the time because they did not have access to information technology; and because his [relative] – who [had influence in] the LNP at the time of his enlistment – gave his details and provided the wrong year; and the fact the payroll number on the back of the card has nothing to do with the card series number on the front. With respect to the concern about the date of enlistment being different to the date of signature, the applicant explained that although he commenced with the LNP in 1989, due to the war commencing in 1990 he abandoned his work: the card has the enlistment date as 1995 however with the change of government in 1997, new ID cards were issued. Although of some concern, the Tribunal is willing to accept these explanations for the irregularities in his LNP ID card provided are, at the very least, plausible.

    [7] Specifically, the card number appears to have been altered; the date of the applicant’s signature on the card differs to the date he allegedly entered service; the applicant’s year of birth recorded on the card is different to his claimed year of birth; the payroll number appears to have been altered and does not reflect the card number; and the card holder’s signature differs to the applicant’s signature in his Protection visa application.

12. The Tribunal also notes an allegation the Department received from a third party that the applicant was lying when he claimed he could not go back to Liberia because he might get killed as an ex-police officer. At hearing the applicant refuted this allegation which he assumed was from his ex-wife, noting that her father was a ‘big guy’ in the police force in Liberia and that they had worked in the same office together. In his response to the Tribunal’s s.424A letter which set out this concern (among others) the applicant again refutes the allegation and refers to the oral evidence of [Mr C] and [Mr E] confirming that he was a police officer in Liberia.

13. Despite these concerns, the Tribunal notes the applicant has consistently claimed to have been a police officer in Liberia from 1989 to 2000; has provided reasonably detailed oral evidence about how he joined the police force and training requirements (for example) to the Tribunal; and a number of witnesses gave oral and in some cases written evidence to the Tribunal confirming that the applicant was with the police force in Liberia, including [Mr E] who purportedly worked with the applicant at the LNP headquarters in Monrovia in the nineties. For these reasons the Tribunal accepts the applicant was a police officer in Liberia from 1989 to 2000. It also accepts he may have been assigned to [named department] for some of this period. However for the reasons that follow the Tribunal considers the applicant exaggerated his role and profile with the [LNP], including his purported involvement in investigations of Charles Taylor and others.

14. First, whilst the applicant claims to have been involved in a number of [investigations] in the past and fears those he investigated could seek revenge, at hearing he was unable to adequately describe the investigations or his specific involvement. For example, when asked about his claim to be part of an economic criminal [investigation], the applicant made general statements about investigations into international crime, money laundering and embezzlement but provided limited detail and context about specific investigations and his particular involvement or role, apart from stating that [in specified cases] he would take down the details, and that he would [undertake specified tasks] when more senior [staff] met: this indicates he played a more clerical role than investigatory or decision-making role.

15. Second, the applicant’s oral evidence about his alleged involvement investigating the $1 million embezzlement case against Charles Taylor was very vague, and he was unable to specify how he was involved in any particular detail. He also failed to mention this aspect of his claims at all in his visa application: instead he stated that he feared those he investigated in the past government of Samuel Doe and who are now in power because he investigated them when they were in opposition. He makes no mention of investigating Charles Taylor, and instead mentions the likes of ‘[Mr G]’: yet at hearing he failed to mention [Mr G] at all until prompted by the Tribunal. As well, in his letter to the Tribunal outlining his fears the applicant does not state that he was targeted as a result of the investigation, but that he would be, as follows:

    The notorious warlord Charles Taylor worked for the Doe government before being removed in 1983 for embezzling $1million. Charles Taylor fled to the US. As an [investigator], I was assigned to the investigation of Charles Taylor and his embezzlement of the $1 million. Upon his return to Liberia and his attainment of power, Charles Taylor was[8] to target those who were of the Krahn ethnic group along with anyone associated in the investigation of his financial crimes.

    [8] Tribunal’s emphasis

16. There are other concerns the Tribunal has with the applicant’s claims to have been targeted by the likes of [General J] and [Mr Q] including his claims having grown, introducing new claims, and inconsistencies in his evidence. For example:

    a.    The applicant failed to mention [General J] or [Mr Q] in his visa application (and written statement that accompanied it) at all. Instead he states that he fears those he personally investigated like ‘[Mr G]’ (purportedly a [political figure] at the time of the application). At hearing the applicant said he failed to mention these two men at the visa application stage because his marriage had broken down and he was very stressed at the time. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s marriage broke down and he may have been stressed as a result, but does not accept that such stress explains a significant omission, in particular about the two men he allegedly fears the most and who allegedly personally targeted him and included him on Charles Taylor’s elimination list, among other things.

    b.    The applicant failed to mention that he was suspected of being involved in an attempted coup against Charles Taylor at the visa application stage and instead states that he conducted the investigation concerning the alleged coup attempt against the government of Liberia. Furthermore, if the applicant was suspected of being involved in a coup attempt against Charles Taylor as claimed, it doubts he would have been released after two weeks in a cell because he was ill as claimed. His return to work at police headquarters in Monrovia in February 1999 also undermines his claims to have been suspected of being involved in the coup attempt and does not indicate that he was fearing [Mr Q] or others linked to Charles Taylor because they suspected him of being involved in a coup attempt, on the basis of his Krahn ethnicity or for any other reason.

    c.     It is somewhat implausible that on the one hand the applicant claims he was on Charles Taylor’s death list and faced constant harassment from the likes of [Mr Q] attending his home and threatening him over a seven-month period (from early March 1999), yet he did not harm him despite knowing where he lived and worked. At hearing when asked why he thinks that was the case, the applicant said it was by the grace of god (that he was not harmed).

    d.    The applicant raised a new claim before the Tribunal about his brother being killed in Liberia in around 2003 (when he worked for [a named charity organisation]) because of his Krahn ethnicity and because of him.

    e.    There are inconsistencies between the applicant’s claims set out in a written document titled ‘My Story’ provided to the Tribunal and his oral evidence in significant respects. For instance, in his written claims the applicant states that in October 1992 his home was surrounded by a group of armed rebel soldiers led by [General J] and his men who stripped naked and beat all the men in the house (accusing them of being Krahn dogs who worked for the former government) and shot and killed the applicant’s brother. However the applicant did not mention that his brother was killed when describing this incident at hearing and when asked about it, the applicant said he meant his cousin who was like a brother to them. The Tribunal accepts in some certain contexts one’s cousin may be referred to as their ‘brother’. However the applicant also states in ‘My Story’ that after they shot his brother in the chest and he died immediately, his father told them there was no point being alive once his son was killed [Tribunal’s emphasis]. Furthermore, at hearing when the applicant explained this incident he did not indicate that anyone was shot and killed – a brother or a cousin.

    f.   Inconsistencies exist between what is stated in some of the letters of support provided and the applicant’s claims in some key respects. For example, [Mr L], [community elder] states in his letter, among other things, that after the applicant left Liberia his family were constantly harassed, intimidated and threatened by those pursuing the applicant. However the applicant made no mention of this at hearing and did not indicate his family members experienced problems because of him after he left, apart from his claim that his brother was killed in 2003; however, for the reasons given above the Tribunal does not accept his brother’s death had anything to do with the applicant. [Mr L] also stated that after [September] 1998 the applicant abandoned his residence and was in hiding until he went to [Country 1] in 1999. However the applicant told the Tribunal that from [March] 1999 he received constant harassment from [General J] and [Mr Q] and from then until he left the country in January 2000 he continued to go to work at LNP HQ but did not go home, staying at different locations.

    g.    Also, in his letter [Mr B] stated, among other things, that in 2000 the applicant fled to [Country 1] because [General J] set ablaze [his aunt]’s compound threatening to kill [them] (and that the applicant’s aunt’s house is now occupied by some rebels). However at hearing the applicant said his aunt’s property in Monrovia was burnt down during the last war – 2003 – which is years after he fled Liberia. Given this inconsistency and other concerns with the applicant’s claims, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s aunt’s house was set on fire by anyone.

17. In addition, the applicant’s return to Liberia from [Country 1] in 2012 with his then wife for around two weeks casts doubt on his claims that he was targeted by [General J] and [Mr Q] who – according to the applicant – continue to hold positions of power in [Liberia]. Furthermore, nothing happened during his visit home. At hearing the applicant claimed he returned only on the insistence of his then wife, they were there for only two weeks, and he stayed inside his then parents-in-law’s house in Monrovia. However if the applicant was on Charles Taylor’s elimination list and the men who allegedly put him there remained in power in Liberia in 2012, the applicant’s return for any time at all raises at the very least a question about his claims in this regard.

1. The applicant claims this was the only time he returned to Liberia after fleeing the country in 2000. However a third party contacted the Tribunal and alleged, among other things, that the applicant visited Liberia more than once whilst in [Country 1] and provided copies of email correspondence between the applicant and others which indicates that he returned to Liberia in December 2004/January 2005 as well as in 2012.[9] In response the applicant claims his ex-partner – angry at him because he would not live with her – hacked into his computer and changed the context to suit her purposes, which the Tribunal considers unlikely given the large number of emails spanning a number of years. Another third party has also alleged that the applicant used to go in and out of Liberia from [Country 1] for business; that he used to go to [Country 4] to buy things to sell in Liberia; he was in Liberia when his ex-wife applied for his visa to Australia; after the applicant and his ex-wife visited Liberia for a few weeks in 2012 the applicant went back to Liberia to get a job, after a while; the applicant left Liberia for [Country 5] for his interview (not from [Country 1]); and that the applicant’s ex-wife used to send money to him in Liberia. In response the applicant refutes these allegations, reiterating that he only went to Liberia once (from [Country 1]); that he used to buy goods in [Country 4] and sell the products to persons going to Liberia; that he went to [Country 5] from [Country 1] for the Departmental interview; he was in [Country 1] at [a] refugee camp when he made the application for the visa and processing time, not Liberia; and his ex-wife did not send him money in Liberia. The Tribunal has considered the allegations and the applicant’s response. It is difficult to establish the facts in the matter however given the allegation that he returned to Liberia from [Country 1] more than once was received from more than one party and included copies of email correspondence indicating that the applicant was in Liberia in 2005 (as well as 2012), the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant may have returned to Liberia from [Country 1] more than once. Even if the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claims that he only returned to Liberia from [Country 1] once after 2000, this significantly undermines his claims to have been specifically targeted by former rebels who remain in positions of power in Liberia.

   [9] As set out in the Tribunal’s s.424A letter to the applicant.

2. For these reasons, whilst the Tribunal accepts the applicant may have worked for the LNP from 1989 to 2000, [it] does not accept that he was involved in investigations against Charles Taylor, or people currently in power either now or when they were in opposition, including [Mr G] (as claimed in his visa application form). It does not accept he was threatened or harmed by [Mr Q], [General J] or anyone else for any reason as claimed. Specifically it does not accept that in 1992 [General J] came to the applicant’s parents’ house, beat and threatened him (and others) and shot bullets in the air, or that [Mr Q] and [General J] beat him and stabbed him at his parents’ house [in] April 1996 before taking him to a police cell. The Tribunal also does not accept that the applicant was questioned and ill-treated in prison for a week in February 1999 on suspicion of being involved in a coup attempt against Charles Taylor or that he received constant harassment from [General J] and [Mr Q] from [March] 1999 until he left Liberia in 2000 (or was in hiding after this date). Nor does the Tribunal accept that the applicant’s name was on Charles Taylor’s elimination list.

3. Although a late claim, the Tribunal is willing to accept the applicant’s brother was killed in Liberia in 2003 but does not accept his killing had anything to do with the applicant given its concerns with his evidence as discussed above.

4. Given the Tribunal’s finding that the applicant was never personally targeted by [Mr Q] and [General J] in the past in Liberia, it does not accept his claims that they have continued to ask his son in Liberia about him.

5. In reaching this conclusion the Tribunal has had regard to the scars on the applicant’s [Body Part 2], [Body Part 3] and [Body Part 4] evident at hearing and in photographs he has submitted. However the causes of these scars are unclear. [Dr I] reports in his letter dated July 2018 that the applicant presented with a history of recurrent [symptoms] which started after he was stabbed in [specified body part] during the Liberian war. The Tribunal accepts the applicant may have been [stabbed] sometime in the past but on the evidence before it, it is unclear about the cause and reasons.

6. The Tribunal has also had regard to the oral evidence of [Mr C] – a friend from high school in Liberia and current representative of the Liberian community in [State 1] – that the applicant could still be at risk of harm in Liberia as a former police officer under Doe’s government; the oral and written evidence of the applicant’s cousin, [Ms A], that some rebels or generals from Charles Taylor’s regime had tried to assassinate him because of his ethnicity and being in the police force; the oral and written evidence of his childhood friend, [Mr B] that rebels had detained him in the past in Liberia and he was ‘hunted’ because of his ethnicity and perceived links to Samuel Doe; and the oral evidence of [Mr E], a former LNP officer, that he was aware something was going on (with the applicant) when they worked together in the nineties (though he did not provide details). However their testimony does not, in the Tribunal’s view, overcome the significant credibility concerns the Tribunal has with the applicant’s case as set out above and therefore the Tribunal gives such testimony little weight.

7. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claims that a former LNP colleague – [Mr H] – was killed in Liberia sometime after the applicant had left for [Country 1], possibly because of his involvement in an [investigation]. However, for the reasons above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was involved or implicated in the investigation or his colleague’s death.

8. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm from [Mr Q] or [General J] (or people linked to them) on the basis of his Krahn ethnicity, as a former police officer (who was appointed under Samuel Doe), because he investigated Charles Taylor or anyone else, or for any other reason on return to Liberia now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

   Krahn ethnicity and imputed political opinion

9. The Tribunal has considered if the applicant faces a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Liberia on account of his Krahn ethnicity and related imputed political opinion.

10. A 2015 Minority Rights Group International overview said that there were 126,400 Krahn people in Liberia, constituting 4 per cent of the country’s population. The overview said that the Krahn ethnic group are part of the south-eastern Kru linguistic group, which also comprises the Kru, Bassa, Grebo and Dei people.[10]

    [10] ‘Liberia Overview’, Minority Rights Group International, 2015

11. In his Protection visa application the applicant states that when Charles Taylor took over in Liberia his men started a systematic process of ‘witch-hunting’ former civil servants who served in the past government of President Samuel Doe and those of his kinsmen. He states that the witch-hunt was compounded due to his tribal background: that is, belonging to the former president Doe’s Krahn ethnicity.

12. In his oral evidence to the Tribunal the applicant said when Charles Taylor (whose ethnicity was ‘American Liberian’) was in power Krahn would not readily identify their ethnicity and the problems they faced included not being able to freely assemble and their movement being curtailed. When asked what the situation was like for Krahn in Liberia now, the applicant said there are still problems and noted that 13 of his ‘fellowmen’ have been imprisoned under Ellen Johnson Sirleaf’s[11] presidency due to an alleged plot to overthrow the government, since around 2013. When asked if he knows these 13 men personally, the applicant said they are from his ethnic group.

    [11] President of Liberia from January 2006 to January 2018, <>

    When asked about his particular concerns on return to Liberia belonging to the Krahn ethnic group the applicant referred to everything he has been through, noting that his [visible injuries] are a reminder. For reasons above the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims of past harm and threats from the then rebels who supported Charles Taylor for any reason, including on the basis of his Krahn ethnicity.

13. At hearing [Mr D] from [Community Organisation 1] in [State 1] stated, among other things, that people of the Krahn ethnic group – Samuel Doe’s group – have been killed and killings are still happening, including to diaspora if they return. He is concerned the applicant will disappear if he returns.

14. The applicant confirmed at hearing that his children and siblings in Liberia are Krahn yet have not experienced any problems on this basis. The applicant said that is because they never worked for the government before.

15. Country information confirms that Samuel Doe was an indigenous Liberian of ethnic Krahn origin who ruled the country from 1980 to 1990. In 1989–1990 Charles Taylor (who is half Americo-Liberian and half Gola) – a former Doe official who had been accused of embezzlement – led his National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) to take over the government. In the fighting that ensued Krahn and other groups were threatened by the NPFL including those who were mistaken for Krahn and anyone who had served or cooperated with the Doe government. Thousands were killed, property was destroyed and many fled into exile.[12]

    [12] ‘Liberia Overview’, Minority Rights Group International, 2015

16. Nonetheless, as discussed at hearing, country information has for some time indicated that ethnic Krahns have not been targeted on the basis of their ethnicity or because of their support of former President Samuel Doe or their perceived support because of their ethnicity.[13] Country information also indicates that while historically ethnicity was important, in the present day ethnicity is less relevant than regional identity as the ethnic groups intermarry and co-exist.[14] Country information also indicates that most ethnic groups, including members of the Krahn ethnic group and apart from the Mandigo and Fula peoples, continue to participate and enjoy full political rights as well as electoral opportunities.[15]

    [13] Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Liberia: Information on whether members of the Krahn tribe are being targeted in Monrovia and in the countryside around Monrovia and if so, whether the threat applies to any Krahn civilian or only to Krahn militia fighters from the Liberian Peace Council (LPC) or the Liberian Armed Forces (AFL), 1 December 1996, LBR25557.E, available at: < Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Liberia: Treatment of those persons and their family members suspected of having supported former president Samuel Doe, particularly members or former members of the National Democratic Party of Liberia (NDPL); including treatment by government agents/armed forces of Liberia or rebel/opposition groups (2004-2005), 1 February 2005, LBR43337.E, available at < Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Liberia: Information on whether civilians or members of any particular ethnic groups are being targeted by the armed forces or by guerrilla organizations, 1 February 1998, LBR28756.E, available at: < Herbert, S. 2014, Conflict analysis of Liberia, Governance and Social Development Resource Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

    [15] Freedom House 2015 Freedom in the World 2015 – Liberia.

Given this country information, and the fact that the Tribunal does not accept the applicant was targeted in the past due to his Krahn ethnicity or as a perceived Samuel Doe supporter, and his family members who reside in Liberia have not reported experiencing problems as Krahns, the Tribunal finds the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm on return to Liberia from anyone on the basis of his Krahn ethnicity or imputed (pro-Samuel Doe) political opinion or as a member of a particular social group of civil servant as submitted. His fear of persecution on these bases is not well-founded.

Although a new claim, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claims to have been an NDPL member in the past but notes his oral evidence that he was not active and only voted for the party. It does not accept his claims to have been threatened and targeted by rebels for a number of reasons, including his NDPL membership. He has not claimed he will be politically active on return and given he was not in the past, the Tribunal finds the applicant will not be. For these reasons the Tribunal finds the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm from anyone because of his past membership of the NDPL.

Involvement with the Liberian community in Australia

The Tribunal has considered if the applicant’s involvement with the Liberian community in Australia would result in a well-founded fear of persecution on return to Liberia.

A number of representatives from various community organisations gave evidence at hearing (and some also in writing) attesting to the applicant’s active involvement and contribution to supporting the Liberian and specifically the Krahn community in Australia, as set out earlier. This includes being appointed as [a] representative in [2017] on the Liberian community leadership board, and being a member of [multiple ethnic community organisations]. The Tribunal accepts the evidence in this regard.

At hearing the applicant said he first became involved with the Liberian community in Australia after he moved to [Australian City 2] in 2014 because he has a passion for serving the community. When he moved to [Australian City 3] in 2015 he was introduced to the then chairman of the [community organisation] which supports social and cultural wellbeing of the community. He works directly with youth, encouraging them with [psychosocial activities]. The Tribunal accepts, based on his oral evidence and the witness evidence, that the applicant’s engagement in such activities was not solely for the purpose of strengthening his refugee claims and therefore s.91R(3) does not apply.

At hearing the applicant described the organisations he belongs to in terms of cultural organisations, which is reflected in some of the letters provided, [which] described it as a ‘social cultural welfare group’ and the oral evidence of some of the witnesses, for example [Mr D]. On this basis the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s involvement in such groups, or other community organisations supporting the Krahn community in Australia, would lead to the applicant facing a real chance of serious harm from the authorities or anyone else on return to Liberia on imputed political opinion or ethnicity grounds.

Christian religion

At hearing the applicant said he also fears persecution on return to Liberia on account of his religious belief, as a Baptist Christian. He said that [Mr Q] is a Muslim and does not like his religion, however, acknowledged that he did not target him because he is Christian, but because he was working as a policeman and he was involved in an investigation against Charles Taylor. For reasons above the Tribunal has not accepted the applicant was targeted by [Mr Q] in the past in Liberia.

The Tribunal accepts the applicant is a Christian. In Australia he said that he is an active member of a [church] in [Suburb 1]. A letter from his pastor has been provided and the Tribunal accepts his claims in that regard. The Tribunal accepts the applicant would continue to practise his Christian religion on return to Liberia. As discussed at hearing, country information indicates that Liberia is a predominantly Christian country and there is no indication that Christians are not able to practise freely.[16] In response the applicant said his concerns relate to his safety and his life.

[16] US Department of State, Liberia 2017 International Religious Freedom Report, <

Given such country information and the fact that the applicant has not experienced problems in the past in Liberia as a Christian, the Tribunal finds remote the chance the applicant would face serious harm from anyone on return to Liberia on account of his Christian religion. The Tribunal is also satisfied the applicant would be able to practise his Christian religion on return, as he has in the past.

General violence

At hearing the applicant claimed that there is a lot of secret and other killings in Liberia and when asked if anyone in particular is targeted the applicant said a businessman was killed in his hotel room for no reason as was another man who had returned from America. (He said not everything is in the media.) He said in 2018 a BBC reporter received threats and fled the country after asking at a press conference about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which angered the president. He has purportedly applied for asylum in the US.

The applicant provided to the Tribunal photographs of recent violence that has allegedly taken place in Liberia because of the prevailing economic situation and disappearances of people. These include a photograph the applicant downloaded from the internet of a student union faction party leader being arrested following student protests in July (2018). The Tribunal notes the applicant does not appear to be claiming that he has any association with this group and the Tribunal is not satisfied that he does.

The Tribunal accepts that crime occurs in Liberia and there was a government crackdown on student protests in mid-2018. However the civil war ended in 2003 and there is nothing before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant may be at risk of generalised violence including violent crime on return to Liberia because of his ethnicity, religion or for any other Refugees Convention reason.

Health concerns

Based on the letter from [Dr I] and the applicant’s oral evidence, the Tribunal accepts the applicant [suffers recurrent symptoms] and discomfort from [previous injuries]. It also accepts the applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal that he has attended counselling two or three times in the past in Australia (when he lived in [City 2]) but has not continued in [City 3] due to cost concerns. However none of these health concerns are so serious as to result in the applicant facing a well-founded fear of persecution as a result on return to Liberia. Nor does the Tribunal accept that the applicant’s [symptoms] and other health problems adequately explain the credibility concerns the Tribunal has with this case, as set out above.

Conclusion – Refugee grounds

Having considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively, for reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real chance of persecution on return to Liberia for any Convention reason in the reasonably foreseeable future and that his fear of persecution is not well-founded.

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).

COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION

Given this finding, the Tribunal has gone on to consider whether or not the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm for the grounds advanced if returned from Australia to Liberia as required under Australia’s complementary protection provisions.

1. The Tribunal finds the applicant is a national of Liberia and that this is his receiving country for complementary protection assessment purposes.

2. For reasons set out above, the Tribunal has not accepted there to be a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm if he returns to Liberia now or in the foreseeable future on imputed or actual political opinion grounds (as a former police officer appointed under Samuel Doe’s government and as a Krahn member), on ethnicity grounds (as a Krahn), religious grounds (as a Christian), or because of his involvement with the Liberian Krahn community in Australia. In MIAC v SZQRB, the Full Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugees Convention definition.[17] It follows that the Tribunal does not accept there to be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm from anyone for these reasons as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Liberia.

   [17] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33 (Lander, Besanko, Gordon, Flick and Jagot JJ, 20 March 2013) per Lander and Gordon JJ at [246], Besanko and Jagot JJ at [297], Flick J at [342]

3. Under s.36(2B)(c) of the Act there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm if the Tribunal is satisfied that the real risk is one faced by the population generally and is not faced by the applicant personally. The Tribunal accepts there are some risks on return to Liberia in terms of crime and general violence that may be associated with street protests for example. However this is a risk faced by the population generally, not by the applicant personally.

4. In terms of the applicant’s health [problems], which the Tribunal accepts, the Federal Court has confirmed that the definition in s.36(2A) is framed in terms of harm suffered because of the acts of others. It does not encompass harm arising from mental illness or harm that a non-citizen would suffer as a result of any other illnesses arising on return to the receiving country.[18] Any harm the applicant will suffer as a result of recurrent [symptoms] will not be harm that is suffered as a result of the act on another person. For this reason, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s [health problems] do not constitute significant harm for complementary protection purposes.

   [18] CSV15 v MIBP [2018] FCA 699

5. Having considered the applicant’s claims singularly and on a cumulative basis and for all the reasons set out above the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Liberia there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm.

   Ministerial intervention

6. At the Tribunal hearing the representative requested that the Tribunal refer the matter to the Minister to consider intervening given the applicant’s support to African youth and families settling into Australia (among other things), if the case was unsuccessful. He noted the oral evidence of a number of witnesses including community representatives in Australia attesting to this fact and in general the applicant’s commitment and support to their community.

7. The Tribunal accepts the applicant has been an active supporter of Liberian community members in Australia, including youth. However having regard to the circumstances of this case and having considered the Ministerial guidelines relating to the Minister’s discretionary power under s.417 set out in PAM3 ‘Minister’s guidelines on Ministerial powers (sections 345, 351, 417 and 501J)’ the Tribunal does not consider this case suitable for referral to the Minister. Nonetheless, the Tribunal notes this option is open to the applicant under s.417 of the Act.

   CONCLUSION

8. 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).

9. 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).

10. 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

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

    Nicole Burns
    Member

    
    

    Attachment – extract of the Tribunal’s s.424A letter to the applicant

    21 August 2018

    Dear [applicant]

    INVITATION TO COMMENT ON OR RESPOND TO INFORMATION – [APPLICANT]

    I am writing in relation to the application for review made by you in respect of a decision to refuse to grant a Protection visa.

    In conducting the review, we are required by the Migration Act 1958 to invite you to comment on or respond to certain information which we consider would, subject to your comments or response, be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review.

    Please note, however, that we have not made up our mind about the information.

    The particulars of the information are:

    There is information contained on the Department of Home Affairs’ (DHA) file in your case which is subject to non-disclosure certificates under s.438 of the Migration Act. Copies of these certificates – which the Tribunal considers are valid – are attached.

    The information to which the certificate dated 22 May 2015 is subject relates to information provided to the Department by a third party who alleges, broadly, as follows:

    • Your claims that your ex-wife has kept your Liberian passport and UNHCR card is not true. You told your ex-wife once that your friends told you what to do with your passport if you wanted to apply for asylum to stay in Australia.
    • Your ex-wife saw your UNHCR card when you came to Australia and it contained a different name and date of birth. You told her you were supposed to go to [Country 2] on that name.
    • Your claims that you cannot go back to Liberia because you might get killed or because you are an ex-police officer are lies.
    • When you lived in [Country 1] you were always in and out of Liberia for business. You used to go to [Country 4] to buy things to sell in Liberia.
    • You were in Liberia when your ex-wife applied for you to come to Australia and you went to [Country 1] to process your application.
    • Your ex-wife went to [Country 1] in July 2012 and you went to Liberia for three weeks together.
    • After a while you went back to Liberia to get a job.
    • You left Liberia to [Country 5] for your interview, not from [Country 1].
    • Your ex-wife sent money to you in Liberia.

    The information to which the certificate dated 22 May 2017 is subject relates to information provided to the Department by a different third party who alleges, broadly, as follows:

    • You and your ex-wife provided false information to the Department about your Prospective marriage visa application in 2011 and your Protection visa application.
    • A number of emails you wrote on a computer owned by the third party contain lies and contradict your claims to fear persecution if returned to Liberia.

    In addition, there is information contained on the Departmental file which is subject to a non-disclosure certificate (dated 22 May 2015) however given it relates to internal working documents, the Tribunal does not consider it is valid. The information was that according to a fingerprint match report from [Country 2] authorities dated 5 December 2014:

    • Your refugee application to [Country 2] was denied, based on credibility, including discrepancies in purported events.
    • The name and date of birth provided to the US is different from your name and date of birth.

    The Tribunal has also received information from the same third party (related to the certificate dated 22 May 2017) who has alleged, broadly, as follows:

    • That you are extremely dishonest and scammed about $[amount] from them.
    • There are a number of emails you wrote on a computer owned by them which indicate (they allege) as follows:

    Ø  You have had affairs with many women at once.

    Ø  You have attempted to defraud the [Country 2] government by obtaining a visa for you and others listed as your children.

    Ø  In [Country 1] you provided false passports and visas for people in exchange for cash.

    Ø  You visited Liberia more than once whilst in [Country 1].

    Ø  You sent an email to a friend in Liberia asking him to send an email to state you should not return there because armed men had attended your mother’s house looking for you, yet the truth is no one is looking for you.

    Ø  They spoke to a friend in Liberia who knows [Mr Q], who is still in the Liberian National Police, who said the details in your story are false and defamatory and the reason you do not want to return to Liberia is because you fear persecution for visa and passport fraud there.

    Ø  In Australia you are shipping [goods] to Liberia and have undertaken cash for work for associates despite having a visa with no work rights.

    That third party submitted to the Tribunal copies of numerous emails which appear to be correspondence between you and others over a number of years. These include:

    • An email which appears to be from you in December 2004 in which you state, among other things, that you went to Liberia, exploring investment opportunities there.
    • An email which appears to be from you in January 2005 in which you state you were in Liberia at that time.

    This information is relevant to the review because, subject to your comments, it may indicate that you have not been truthful about aspects of your claims and raises concerns about your credibility more broadly. These include your specific claims that you have only returned to Liberia once from [Country 1] during the period you resided there (2000 to 2013) as well as your claims that you fear persecution in Liberia as an ex-police officer, among other things. If so, this would cause the Tribunal to not accept your claims to fear persecution or significant harm on return to Liberia and would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.

    You are invited to give comments on or respond to the above information in writing.