1616200 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a Nigerian citizen seeking a protection visa for Australia. The applicant arrived in Australia in July 2015 and his tourist visa was cancelled after he admitted to being in Australia for business purposes. He later applied for a protection visa, claiming fear of harm from Boko Haram due to his Christian faith, and subsequently, fear of harm from MASSOB (Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra) due to his alleged involvement with the group.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as required by section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or whether he met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm if returned to Nigeria. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding threats and violence from MASSOB, the impact of Boko Haram's actions on his family, and the availability of effective protection measures within Nigeria, including the possibility of internal relocation.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. It found that the applicant's claims regarding MASSOB were not credible, particularly noting the delay in raising this issue and inconsistencies in his account. While acknowledging the violence perpetrated by Boko Haram and the death of his father and siblings, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution on this basis, nor that he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal. The Tribunal considered the possibility of internal relocation within Nigeria and found that the applicant had not demonstrated that such relocation would not be reasonable or that effective protection would be unavailable.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.