1617260 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 3077

1617260 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 3077 (27 May 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1617260

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Ghana

MEMBER:Anne Grant

DATE:27 May 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 27 May 2021 at 10:17am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Ghana – bogus document – evidence of identity – passport under a different name – credibility concerns – religion – Christianity – tribal custom – Messenger of the gods – member of the Ananagya Aduana Royal Family – King 's stool – chieftaincy dispute – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65, 91WA
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

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 Ghana, applied for the visa on 22 August 2014 in the name and identity of [Alias 1] and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 23 September 2016.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 April 2021 to give evidence and present arguments.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the applicant was given 14 days to provide additional evidence (a death certificate and police report) in respect of the death of one of his brothers. On 16 April 2021, he requested additional time to provide the information and was advised on 19 April 2021 that he could provide the information by 14 May 2021.  

4. On 20 April 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and gave him formal notice of a certificate pursuant to s.438 of the Act which covered information which had already been disclosed to him by the delegate and discussed at hearing, and an additional opportunity to comment on the information covered by the certificate, and also invited him to comment on adverse information pursuant to section 424A of the Act.  The content of that notification and invitation is recorded in full below.   The applicant did not provide any response to the invitation within the period given for response (or at all) and did not seek an extension of the time within which to respond.

5. On 14 May 2021, the applicant provided a Ghanaian death certificate and some police records relating to the death of [Mr A] [in] March 2019 from Multiple Organ Failure.  The information suggests ‘Foul play suspected’ in the death, and the autopsy report suggests that the cause of death was ‘Multi Organ Failure (unnatural) and Chemical Poisoning.’  This information is discussed further below. 

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. 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.

7. 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).

8. 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.

9. 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’).

10. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and 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.

11. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a refugee and if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being returned to Ghana, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

    The applicant’s identity and documents provided to the Department with his application for protection.

12. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] July 2014 on a visitor (class FA subclass 600) visa.  He lodged an application for protection on 22 August 2014.  In his application for protection, the applicant (then using the name and identity of [Alias 1]) stated that he had never been known by any other name.   He claimed that he has no other current passport, and had never been refused a visa to any country.   He claimed to be married to [Ms B]. He provided a Ghanaian passport [number], issued [in] 2011 which described his date and place of birth as [Date 1].  This passport has a number of visa stamps for different countries in 2011. It includes a visitor visa for [Country 1] issued [in] February 2014 and valid [until] February 2015.

13. The applicant was interviewed by a departmental officer on 13 September 2016.  I have listened to that recording which ended before the natural justice break. The applicant also provided a copy of the delegate’s decision with his application for review.  I consider that the delegate has accurately summarised the evidence given to him during the departmental interview in that decision.  In that decision, the delegate notes in relation to the applicant’s identity evidence:

    On 16 September 2014 the applicant provided biometrics to the department which
    included a digital photograph and scan of his fingerprints. His biometrics matched
    against [Country 2] government databases and showed that he applied for a [Country 2] visa twice in
    2011 under the identity [the applicant], born [Date 2], national of
    Ghana. Both of his applications were refused.

    The Department obtained a copy of the bio-data page of Ghanaian passport [number], issued [in] 2008, in the identity [the applicant], born [Date 2], national of Ghana. It was observed that the photograph in that passport
    appears to be a true likeness of the applicant. It was further observed that the signature
    in that passport appears to be identical to the applicant's signature on his application
    forms and on the passport he presented with his application.

    The applicant was interviewed in relation to his Protection visa application on 13
    September 2016. He was asked whether he had ever been known by any other names.
    He responded in the negative. He was asked whether he had ever made any other visa
    applications. He again responded in the negative.

    When it was put to the applicant at interview that the Department had information he
    had applied for a [Country 2] visa twice in the identity [the applicant], born [Date 2], national of Ghana, he initially denied that it was him. He stated that he
    had a previous passport that was stolen but he had never been known by this identity.
    During the interview, the applicant inadvertently referred to himself as '[the applicant variant]'. It was put to him that he had denied ever being known by that name. He responded that
    his friends call him ‘[another name]'.

    Later in the interview, it was put to the applicant that his email address,
    [redacted], further indicated that his real identity is [the applicant], born [Date 2], national of Ghana.

    Following a natural justice break, the applicant conceded that this was previously his
    identity. He claimed to have initially forgotten about this as it was a long time ago. He
    stated that 'the agency' advised him to change his surname because of the situation he was facing (he claims he was being pursued by various enemies).  

14. At hearing, the information in his application and the delegate’s decision surrounding the applicant’s identity was discussed with him.   The applicant confirmed that his true name and identity is [the applicant], born [Date 2].  He stated that he had never lived and worked as [Alias 1] in Ghana at any stage.  Any and all documents which suggest he did are false.  He claimed that a woman who had been suggested by his church pastor had made all of the travel arrangements, including obtaining the passport in the name of [Alias 1] and the visitor visa to travel to Australia.  He agreed that he travelled using that passport in 2011 to nearby African countries and used it to travel to Australia in July 2014.  He claimed that he does not know what had happened to his genuine [passport]. 

15. He agreed that he was in fact born and lived in Ghana as [the applicant].  However, he initially claimed to have no knowledge of any application to the United Kingdom for a visa in that name during 2011.  According to the delegate’s decision and information on the departmental file, he applied twice for a visitor visa to [Country 2] and his true identity ([the applicant]) was identified after an international identity check using his fingerprints.  When I asked how he could claim that he did not know that anyone had ever applied for a visa for [Country 2] in his name when he had given his fingerprints for that purpose, the applicant said that he did ‘now recall’ that he ‘had been told to’ go to the [Country 2] embassy in Accra and that he did in fact give his fingerprints at that time.  It was not clear from his evidence why he would do so unless it was necessary for a visa, or why he initially claimed no knowledge of applying for visas in [Country 2].      

16. In his application for protection, the applicant claimed he was [Alias 1], born to [Mr C] (father) and [Ms D] (mother) on [Date 1]. At hearing, the applicant confirmed that these details are incorrect.  The birth certificate provided in support of his visitor visa is fake.  He has lived in Australia as [Alias 1] and provided Australian identification documents in that name with his visa application. He provided a Medicare Card, [a] debit visa card and a student identification for [University 1], all in the name of [Alias 1].

17. According to the address details in his protection application, the applicant had lived at [Address 1] (Ghana) from September 2009 to July 2014.  He claimed that he lived at [Address 2] from his birth to July 2005 and then again from June 2008 to September 2009.  According to this document, the applicant lived at [University 2] in Kumasi  from July 2005 to June 2008.  He suggested he had travelled to [Country 3] in August 2011 and to [Country 4] in July 2011 ‘to visit’.

18. At hearing, when asked about the various details in his application, the applicant gave evidence that the information about his address and education was wrong.  He said he had never lived at [Address 1] in Kumasi.  In that period, he claimed he was actually in hiding, being protected by his church.  He did live at [Address 2] (the family home) from birth until he left in early 2008, apart from when he was at university.  He claims that after 2008, he never returned to live at the family home.  The applicant stated that he finished university in 2004 and not 2008. In Part G of the application for protection, the applicant claimed that he attended [specified course] at secondary school from February 2002 to November 2004 and then a [Qualification 1] at [University 2] in Kumasi from July 2005 to June 2008.   He told the Tribunal this information was also false, as he finished all study in 2004.

19. In relation to the travel to [Country 4], [Country 5] and [Country 3], the applicant claimed that he did travel there as ‘[Alias 1]’ as part of a church camp in 2011.  When it was noted that he told the delegate in the interview with him that he travelled there as part of university games, the applicant said that he had ‘meant’ as part of a church camp, because he had finished university several years earlier.   

20. The applicant claimed in Part F of the application for protection that he worked at [Company 1] in Kumasi as a supervising manager from September 2009 to April 2012.  His application states that he then worked at [Company 2] as an [Occupation 1] in Kumasi from April 2012 to July 2014.  At hearing, the applicant stated that he only worked at [Company 2] as a ‘volunteer’ doing [certain] tasks for 8 or 9 months in late 2010 until early 2011.  Then, he claims he was recognised by someone from his home village who said his elders were still looking for him and when he told his parents this, they advised him to leave and go into hiding.   He gave evidence that he only worked at [Company 1] part time and again in a voluntary role in 2010, prior to working at [Company 2].  He said that the information in his application for a protection visa about his roles and employment history was therefore incorrect.  When he was asked what work he did apart from these two part time or temporary roles between 2008 and 2014 when he left the country, the applicant claimed that he worked for [Foundation 1], which was affiliated with his church as a mentor to the young men there.   It was not an official role.  He claimed the foundation worked in the area of [education] and wellness.  It was noted that he had not informed the delegate of this ‘work’ or role.

21. According to his application for protection, the applicant has two brothers only, both younger than him.  At hearing, he claimed to have [number] siblings, including an older brother and sister.  He claimed he is the ‘[deleted] child’ and [deleted] son.  He said the information in his application about his brothers was false.

22. I find, based on the documents and information before me that the applicant is not [Alias 1] but is [the applicant].  I am satisfied that he is Ghanaian, and that he was born in [year].  I consider his claims must be assessed against Ghana as the country of his nationality and the receiving country. 

23. Under s.65(1) of the Act, the Minister (or the Tribunal on review) must refuse to grant a visa if the grant is prevented by s.91WA. Section 91WA(1) requires the Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa to an applicant who provides a ‘bogus document’ as evidence of their identity, nationality or citizenship, or has destroyed or disposed, or caused the destruction or disposal of, documentary evidence of their identity, nationality or citizenship. However, that requirement will not apply if the applicant has a reasonable explanation for the provision, destruction or disposal, and either provides relevant documentary evidence or has taken reasonable steps to provide such evidence: s.91WA(2).

24. Bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister (or the Tribunal) reasonably suspects is a document that purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly: s.5(1).

25. I find that the applicant has provided a bogus document as evidence of his identity (the passport in the name of [Alias 1]).  For the reasons which follow and after considering his evidence, I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided a reasonable explanation for providing those bogus documents.  I therefore find that s.91WA(1) applies to the applicant.    However, I have nonetheless also proceeded to consider the applicant’s substantive claims under ss 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa).

    The applicant’s claims 

26. In the statement attached to his application, the applicant made the following claims: 

    • My name is [Alias 1] and I am a [age] years old male born in [Town 1], Ashanti Region of Ghana. I speak Twi and belong to the Ananagya Aduana Royal Family. My ethnicity is Akan and my religion is Christianity. I am married with no children. My father and mother and two siblings are currently both alive and are currently living in Ghana. I am my parent's oldest child.
    • I completed Senior High School in 2004 at [School 1]. In 2005, I moved to Kumasi to further my education at [University 2] to pursue [Qualification 1]. I visited home during holidays or for funerals. I moved back to [Town 1] after completing my [Qualification 1].
    • I have lived in Australia since July 2014, after arriving as a business visitor. I fear returning to Ghana because I will be persecuted and be subjected to inhumane treatment.
    • The following is only a summary of my claims for protection. It is not an exhaustive statement of the reason or reasons why I cannot return to Ghana. I will provide further information in relation to my present claims during my interview with the POE officer. Also I have not been explained what is relevant and what I am require to disclose to the Department for the purpose of assessment of my claims.

    Why I left my country:

    BACKGROUND IN COUTRIES OF FEARED PERSECUTION

    • I lived in Ghana all my life since birth. For many years since 2008, after the death of then King Barima Asumadu Sakyi II in 2007, my tribe (the Ananagya Aduana Royal Family) has been subjected to persecution and substantial discrimination amounting to gross violation of human rights. In 2009, I moved to Kumasi to flee the persecution and all the inhumane treatment from the hands of the Ankaase Royal Family.
    • As traditions of my homeland demands, the King 's stool is required to be rotated between the Ananagya and the Ankaase Royal Family upon the death of the existing King. In 2007, after death of the King from the Ankaase Royal Family, it was my tribe's turn to appoint a member of our tribe to become the new King. However, the Ankaase people refuse to pass on the stool and this led chieftaincy dispute that has resulted to the murder of four Ananagya Royal Family members who were in line to be appointed as the King. Accordingly, the Queen mother and - elders of the Ankaase Royal Family has issued warning to my tribe members in determination to eliminate all members of the Ananagya Royal Family by death.
    • Due to the fear of my life, I moved to Kumasi in September 2009 and in February 2010, I received a message that I was required back in the hometown ungently. A day later, I went to my hometown [Town 1] , to meet the elders of my family, who told me that in order for them to reclaim the stool, it was my time to serve as Messenger of the gods to perform all ritual and libations to the gods. I immediately accepted the role, as it was a sign of respect and dignity for myself and an honour for my entire family. My family and the entire Ananagya Royal Family were happy. I went back to Kumasi to organise my affairs and return to [Town 1] a two weeks later for my initiation. When I returned in two weeks time, I was told my initiation would begin the next day at dawn in the forest and then at the shrine. At dawn one of the elders performed some initiation rites in the forest and at the shrine. They poured powder and oil on me and chanted to the gods. I was made to pour libation to the gods.
    • After the initiation, the elder told me that from that day I am to stop going to church as my duty from that day was to devote myself entirely to the worship of the gods. This was a problem for me and told the elder that I have been a Christian my whole life and could not give it up. The elder told me in no certain terms that it was acceptable to be a Christian as worshiping of the gods is required in order to claim the vacant King's stool.
    • When I got home, I discussed it with my parents and said I would do the job as the Messenger of the gods as custom demanded but wanted to worship as a Christian. My parents remonstrated with the elders to allow me to worship as a Christian but the elders refused. I could not give up worship as Christian. The family said that, that has left them with no choice but to me him for disobeying the wishes of the gods. This scared me so I ran away to Kumasi in order to avoid any inhumane treatment.

    INCIDENTS THAT LED TO ME FLEEING THE COUNTRY OF PERSECUTION

    • A week after running away, the head of the family, accompanied by three other elders and five boys from the Ananagya family arrived at my apartment in Kumasi and demanded me to return to [Town 1]. They said if I refuse they would have to kill me to make sacrifices to the gods.
    • Since then, I started to sleep with my friend in his apartment while my belongings were still in my apartment, pretending I was still living there. I discussed the issue with my neighbour [of] what was going on. I instructed her that if anybody come there looking for me, she should tell them she does not know my where about. On or about November 2010, my neighbour called me and informed me my family elders came there looking for me on several occasions. I was extremely scared of my life and I felt I would not be safe wherever I go in Ghana. My fear led to go into hidden on or about July 2011 in a village [just] at the border of Ghana and [Country 5] where I was sleeping in a shed. I never felt safe in the village so I crossed the border to [Country 5] where a week later move to [Country 4] is a search for safe place to hide from the sight of my family. Also these attempts never turn fruitful in search of a safe place in order to avoid persecution.
    • In addition to my refusal to become a Messenger of the gods, the brutality and the killings suffered by the Ananagya Royal Family in the hands of the Ankaase people has putting my life in danger and now fear for my life.
    • On 3 June 2014, I was granted Business Visitor visa to attend [a specified event] in Melbourne. Now that the [event] has completed , I am afraid to go back to Ghana, as I am afraid the elders and members of the Ananagya Royal Family would find him and kill him.

    What I fear might happen if I go back to my country:

    • I fear that I will be severely harmed, detained and killed by the Ananagya Royal Family for refusing to take the role as Messenger for the gods in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Ananagya Royal Family now considers me as an instigator against them, for my propaganda and opinions. They believe that I am a devil and believe the exact contrary of what I still believe in. My family elders are still looking for me.
    • I also believe the Ankaase Royal Family's intention to kill members of my tribe has also putting my life in danger as I fear at any point in time they could kill me while the chieftaincy dispute is at its climax.

    Who I think will harm or mistreat me if I go back:

    • I believe my family elders and the Ankaase people are after me. My family now consider me to have disobeyed the wishes of the gods and therefore have to pay the price by killing me to make sacrifice to the gods. They are angry with me as they believe my refusal to take the role will reduce any chances of reclaiming the stool.
    • I also believe that, since I am a member of the Ananagya Royal Family, I will be subjected to harm, persecution and potentially be killed by the Ankaase Royal Family if I am refouled from Australia.

    Why I believe they will harm or mistreat me if I go back:

    • This is due to my religious beliefs, because I refused to give up my Christianity to worship the fetish gods as part of the role of gods Messenger. I fear the harm because I had already taken up the position of the Messenger, poured libation and been accepted by the gods, for this reason, the elders could not appoint different Messenger until my death. The elders have to kill me, because according to traditions they cannot appoint another Messenger while one is alive, and I had already been accepted by the fetish gods during the initiation rites.
    • In addition to the aforementioned fear of harm, being a member of the Ananagya Royal Family has putting my life in danger as the chieftaincy dispute with the Ankaase Royal Family is at its climax.

    Why I believe that the authorities in my country will not protect me if I go back:

    • The authorities will not protect me and therefore no state protection is available to me in this situation. Ghanaian police suffer from inadequate resourcing and a lack of capacity, and that there is not a great deal of public trust because of a reputation for brutality, corruption and negligence.
    • The Chieftaincy laws in Ghana gives villages and other traditional chiefs power to mediate local matters and enforce customary tribal laws dealing with such matters as divorce, child custody, property disputes and family disputes. In addition, Ghana Constitution prevents the government from interfering in chieftaincy matters, therefore I was unable to avail my self of state protection.

    Why I believe I will suffer significant harm:

    • The government cannot and will not provide protection for me. My refusal to undertake the duties of the Messenger has led my family to believe that they will lose the chieftaincy dispute because of me. I am afraid of being found by both my family and the Ankaase Royal Family if I return to Ghana, and being killed without anyone knowing.

    Why I cannot relocate

    • I tried to relocate and escape the feared persecution by moving to Kumasi. My family elders followed me to Kumasi where I eventually travelled to Australia. My elders are of the belief that they are unable to appoint a new Messenger until my death. Ghana is very small and therefore there is real chance that no matter where I relocated in Ghana, the elders would seek to kill me.

1. The applicant and his then representative provided several news articles regarding a Chieftaincy dispute in [Town 1] over several years.  These articles include news articles and also blog articles outlining an ongoing dispute over the issue of chieftaincy including personal opinion pieces by a person [about] the dispute. 

2. Prior to the hearing, the applicant had also sent in some documents and attached two articles:

   ·“[Article title redacted]” from [Publication 1] dated [in] July 2017 by [a person]. 

   ·Online news report from unknown site entitled “[Title redacted]” Dated [in March] 2017.  This article refers to a ‘rival paramount chief’ being arrested with eight others after a [riot] potentially related to a [chieftaincy dispute].

   ·Also included was a document declaring ‘In the Superior Court of Judicature, High Court of Justice, Kumasi, Ghana AD2012’ purporting to be a “Statutory Declaration by [the applicant] as to accurately declare the reason for the change of his name and date of birth”.  This statement refers to the applicant’s claimed history of refusing to be messenger of the gods; claims that this provoked the elders of the family and that some attempts were made to destroy his life but he was able to escape their evil plans.  He states that he decided to change his name from [the applicant] to [Alias 1], that he used the name to acquire a passport with the intention of securing his life.  However, the statement says that the person who secured it used the date of birth [Date 1] ‘since he could not reach as at the time my personal information was being provided.”  This statement purports to bear a Court seal and to have been signed before a Commissioner for Oaths in Kumasi and is dated [in] May 2012. 

   ·Another Statutory Declaration declaring ‘In the Superior Court of Judicature, High Court of Justice, Kumasi, Ghana AD2011’ purporting to be a “Statutory Declaration by [Alias 1] as to confirm a change of his name to [the applicant]”  dated [in] July 2011 which includes a declaration that he was originally named by his parents as [the applicant] and “That, due to some traditional issues in order to avoid attacks on my life, my name has been changed from [the applicant] to [Alias 1].”  It later states “ That, in order to avoid any future misunderstanding in relation to my name, I have forthwith reverted to the use of my original name:  [the applicant].”  This statement also purports to bear a Court seal and to have been signed before a Commissioner for Oaths in Kumasi.

   ·A third statutory declaration commencing ‘In the Superior Court of Judicature, High Court of Justice, Kumasi, Ghana AD2011’ purporting to be a ‘Statutory declaration by [the applicant] as to affirm his accurate date of birth as [Date 2].’  This declaration declares that his date of birth was wrong on an attached record as [Date 1].  This statement also purports to bear a seal and to have been made before a Commissioner for Oaths in Kumasi [in] July 2011.

3. When the applicant returned his hearing invitation, he also provided a further statement of claims to the Tribunal, on 7 April 2021.  That statement was as follows: 

   I, [THE APPLICANT] wholeheartedly wish to state. due to what my family deemed to be the highest level of deliberate disobedience. disrespectfulness and disappointment to our CUSTOMS and TRADITIONS with a sorrowful heart wish to state that, I was originally named by my parents as [THE APPLICANT] in the presence of all principal family members which I grew to meet most of them.

   I intentionally changed my name from [THE APPLICANT] to [ALIAS 1] due to what my family saw it to be the highest level of disrespectfulness. disappointment and disobedience to our CUSTOMS. TRADITION and TRADITIONAL LEADERS which in turn has also generated unquenchable death threats to my life.

   In 1995 the [TOWN 1] STOOL in the ASHANTI REGION which is highly respected became vacant since the NANA ASUMADU SAKYI [died]. The enstoolment of [TOWN 1] STOOL can only be done from two great credible royal families known as "ANANYA" and "ANKAASE" where the great CHIEF TWENEBOA KODUA the man who sacrificed his head for ASHANTIS VICTORY comes from.

   Per our CUSTOMS and TRADITIONS the moment the CHIEF OF [TOWN 1] dies automatically the linguist positions to the SHRINES in both royal families "ANANYA" and "ANKAASE" also become vacant which require fresh appointments. In our family "ANANYA" where I come from in [Town 1] the traditional elders performed all the rituals after the death of [deleted] and specific names which included my name [THE APPLICANT]'S were selected, but later the family got to know that, the name [THE APPLICANT] was the one that had been selected by the fetish priest to traditionally serve as the linguist to the SHRINE of "ANANYE".

   What made my attitude very annoying and deserving to be sacrificed to calm the anger of the gods and our traditional leaders was that, when my name was selected by the fetish priest according to our
   tradition the information was sent to me. I initially grabbed it with all joy and even went further to
   promise the family of my commitment and willingness to serve as linguist. When I was summoned by the traditional leaders and was told to only pay allegiance to our gods by forfeiting my Christian beliefs that was when I started having a change of mind since I have been a Christian throughout my life.

   With the aggressive persuasion on the part of the tradition made me have a change of mind not to serve as the linguist to the shrine; hence it did not take long I moved to Kumasi for the fear of my life. Since I knew it was not difficult for my own people to identify me because of my royal tribal mark, I changed my original name from [THE APPLICANT] to [ALIAS 1] with the motive of hiding my identity. Since anyone who disregards the traditional calling is put to death, the traditional elder and the entire community consider me as disgrace, abominable, a curse and a threat to family and the community because I have set a bad precedent which my life has to be replaced.

   I immediately left to Kumasi. Ashanti Region. Ghana and never returned to [Town 1] because of the
   information I had from my childhood friends that. no matter what I will be sacrificed as a curse thing to
   please our gods. This decision I took because of my firm believe in Christianity has created an unending chaos/confusion in our community though the CHIEF of [TOWN 1] has been enstooled. All the traditional elders have pains in their heart. so anytime there is a program like funeral, pouring of libation etc. and the CHIEF of [TOWN 1] attends it revives bitterness. pain and anger in the youth including the traditional leaders which in turn generates fear and panic in the community.

   As it stands now. my parents have relocated from their old place of residence due to agitations and
   uncontrollable pressures both physically and spiritually to produce me to be pacified to avert curses and to avoid bad precedent.

   My [age] year old brother late [Mr A] was poisoned in the year 2019 when he attended a funeral in our hometown. There is instability in the community because of my disappointment. Now since my [age] year old brother is dead. I am the only one left to bury my father who is [age] years when he dies. The fact is when I die before my father who is in his golden age, there will be no one to bury him.

   The worrying and troubling aspect of all these issue is that, I find myself in Ghana, it is possible people can take the law into their own hands and kill me. The Ghana's security apparatus does not have the requisite resources for protection and also monitor bad people. The fact is one journalist AHMED SUALE was killed in the year 2018 and a member of parliament LATE J.B.DANUUAH ADU was also killed by same evil men, but as it stands now nothing has been heard about it.

   There is no second chance for my life when I hit the shores of Ghana: therefore I am pleading that. all the necessary care due me should be granted.

4. As noted above, I have listened to the interview with the delegate and consider the essential content of the applicant’s evidence given during the interview was accurately reflected in the delegate’s decision.  In relation to his claims for protection, that information and evidence given to the delegate was as follows: 

   The applicant and his representative attended an interview in Melbourne on 13
   September 2016 (digital recording at folio 114 ). In addition to being questioned about
   his identity and international travel history (as discussed above), he was questioned
   about the chieftaincy dispute. It was observed that some of the members of the
   Ananagya royal family referred to in open source material relating to the dispute have
   the family name '[applicant family name]'. He appeared to demonstrate some familiarity with
   members of the family and its lineage.

   The applicant was asked about his appointment as messenger of the gods. He stated
   that he was chosen by the gods; they mentioned his name to the elders. He had a fine
   career but he accepted his appointment as he could not let his family down. He had no
   choice in the matter. He thought he would be able to maintain his lifestyle, including
   his practice of Christianity, but the elders wanted him to devote all his time to serving
   the gods. His parents had raised him to be a Christian and supported his desire to
   continue practising that faith. They wanted him to become a pastor one day. However,
   the elders insisted that he be exclusively focused on sending and receiving messages
   from their fetish gods.

   It was put to the applicant that, according to country information, many Ghanaians
   who self-identify as Christian also adhere to some aspects of indigenous beliefs, and
   there are no reports of significant social actions affecting religious freedom in
   Ghana. He commented that this is true in some parts of Ghana but his community has
   a strong, primitive life. He was not told to avoid Christianity but he had a
   responsibility to serve as messenger of the fetish gods.

   The applicant was asked about his duties as messenger of the god. He stated that he
   had to pour libations, communicate with the gods through spiritual signs, and pass on
   messages about what will happen on the battlefield or on the farms. The gods told
   him what will happen in his future. They told him he should marry an elderly woman.
   He only received this message when he was introduced to the woman.

   The applicant reiterated the dangers he fears from his own family and from the rival
   Ankaase Royal Family. He stated that he is easily identifiable as an Ananagya
   because of tribal markings on his cheeks.

   The applicant was asked why he only relocated to Kumasi, which is approximately [number]
   kilometres from [Town 1], rather than relocating further away to avoid his enemies.
   He stated that he did not have any family elsewhere in Ghana, such as in Accra; all his
   family are in Kumasi. He would not feel safe in Accra because he would have no one
   stay with and would not know who his enemies were.

   The applicant was asked whether he had sought protection from the police. He stated
   that the police would have made his situation worse. If he had relied on their protection, he would have been killed. The government does not intervene in chieftaincy disputes.

   The applicant was asked when he left [Town 1] and went into hiding. He stated that he
   could not remember. He stated that when he was chased away he gave his passport to
   a friend to help him travel abroad.

   The applicant was asked why he had given inconsistent information about his
   international travel history. He stated that this issue is very painful. He cannot recall
   most of what happened to him as it is too painful.

   The applicant was asked how he obtained his Australian Visitor visa. He stated that
   when he was in hiding he went to church. He used to clean someone's house. This
   person advised him to leave Ghana, and took his passport. This person got him a visa
   to attend [an event] in Australia. He was not involved with [Foundation 1] as contended in his Visitor visa application. The church was involved. He
   was not aware of the supporting documents that were submitted with that application.
   At the end of the interview, the applicant's representative submitted several news articles relating to an ongoing chieftaincy dispute in [Town 1] (folios 96-110).

   Evidence given at hearing

5. The applicant’s passport (in the name [Alias 1]) has a visa for [Country 1] and the applicant was asked why, if he was in fear of harm in Ghana, he had not travelled to [Country 1] under that visa.  His response was confusing, but he appeared to be suggesting that he gave his passport to a friend to arrange visas to get out of the country and then lost touch with the friend.  He also claimed he couldn’t afford a ticket to [Country 1] and they were looking into other ways he could get out of the country.  His church and an organisation affiliated with them agreed to help him ([Foundation 1]).   The person found by his pastor arranged it all, including the documents in support of his visitor visa application. 

6. The applicant’s application and statements to the delegate were filled with falsehoods as can be seen from the information above and as acknowledged by the applicant during the hearing. He agreed that he is not [Alias 1], but is [the applicant].  His father is not [Mr C], but is [another name] and his mother is not [Ms D] but is [another name].  He does not have two brothers only and was not the eldest of three but is one of [number] children, [number] brothers and [number] sisters.   He was not born on [Date 1] but was born on [Date 2].  He did not work for [Company 2] from 2012 to 2014 but only for a few months in late 2010 until 2011.  He claims that work came to an end because he was recognised, though he claimed to be in hiding and his parents told him to give up that job and move away to protect himself.  The applicant said he did not work for [Company 1] from 2010 to 2012.  He only worked voluntarily for them for a few months during 2010.  The applicant said that he finished [Qualification 1] at university in 2004 and that he was not at university from 2005 to 2008 as stated in his application.     The period of residence and address locations on his application for protection are also incorrect.  He also stated that he had never ‘hidden’ or sought safety in [Country 5] or [Country 4] or any other country as claimed in the written application.  He claimed that he lived from 2008 to 2014 ‘in hiding’ with his church’s assistance, and that he helped [Foundation 1] by generally ‘mentoring and teaching’ young men.  This was new information, and directly contradicted what he told the delegate about him having never had any involvement whatsoever with [Foundation 1].

7. Prior to hearing and as outlined above, the applicant had provided to the Tribunal some additional documents purporting to be statutory declarations in the High Court of Ghana, allegedly sealed [in] July 2011 [and] May 2012 (though not signed) respectively and also some documents about land transfers to [Alias 1].  The ‘statutory declarations’ purport to be the applicant correcting his date of birth and explaining how and why he changed his name and acquired his [Alias 1] passport ‘to secure his life and avoid all traces.’  They also claim that he is forthwith ‘reverting to the use of his original name’ - [the applicant] - ‘to avoid any future misunderstanding’.  When I asked what these documents were, the applicant said that after his interview with the delegate, it was clear that his birthday was incorrect on his passport and also he wanted to explain the change of his name and he rang a lawyer in Ghana and asked him to sort it out and provide some evidence.  The lawyer sent him the documents.  I noted that, the documents do not bear a date after the interview in 2016, but suggest he renounced the use of his passport identity of [Alias 1] and corrected his birth date on his ‘official records’ in 2011 and 2012.  They purport to bear the seal of the High Court at that time.  I put to him that these documents are clearly false in both their content and the suggestion they were declared in Ghana as they claim in 2011 and 2012.  The applicant agreed that they are not evidence of any such ‘renunciation’ of his false identity or correction of his date of birth as they purport in 2011 or 2012.  Further, despite what is in those documents, the applicant gave evidence that he never actually lived as [Alias 1] in Ghana.  He clearly stated that all documents he had provided suggesting that he did are false.  However, he said he did use the [Alias 1] passport to travel as he had earlier stated on church camps (not University soccer trips as he suggested to the delegate).

8. In relation to his claim that his brother was killed in 2019, the applicant claimed that he was poisoned at a funeral, by people from their own family/tribe because they are still mad about the applicant’s conduct in refusing the role of messenger.  When asked how he died, the applicant said his brother was poisoned.  He claimed that someone put something in his alcohol and, because his brother had an ulcer and sometimes has bad pain after drinking, he wasn’t taken to a doctor until it was too late.  The applicant claimed that a report to police was made but the perpetrators charged were bailed and are awaiting trial.  At hearing, the applicant asked (and I agreed to his request) to play a video of his brother’s funeral.  He played a video on his phone.   This video showed various people attending an event, where there was singing and dancing.  The attendees were wearing colourful clothes and face masks.   The applicant pointed out his father and mother in the video.  When I asked why the attendees at the funeral were wearing masks, he said that it was because of the pandemic.  When it was noted that the pandemic had not commenced until early 2020 around the globe, the applicant initially argued the point, claiming it started in 2019.  However, he then claimed that he must have played the wrong video.  He found and played another video of people gathered in a street, (not wearing masks) and identified his sister and his mother.  Whilst the persons in the video looked sombre, it did not look like a formal occasion such as a funeral and appeared to just be a video of people standing around in the street.  In light of the new claim about his brother’s murder and the plethora of admittedly false information the applicant had provided (including in the days leading up to the hearing), I requested a copy of the official death certificate and the police report relating to the incident.  I noted that they should be official Ghanaian documents; and that given his admissions about his application identity, the false documents lodged with his visitor visa application and the recent High Court of Justice statements which were not official nor legitimate, it may be necessary for the Tribunal to send copies to Ghana have them verified if there was any question about their veracity.  The applicant initially suggested that ‘not all deaths have a death certificate in Ghana’ and appeared uncertain as to whether he could obtain one.   However, he agreed that in cases where, as he alleges, a person is murdered and this allegation is reported to police, there would definitely be a death certificate and a police report; and undertook to obtain copies.    

9. The applicant claimed his parents have relocated after the death of his brother out of fear.  They now live at a place remote from [Town 1]. However; the applicant claimed that all his surviving siblings and their children (there are 5 nieces and nephews in total) are still living in [Town 1]. 

10. In relation to his claims for protection, the applicant gave evidence that around 2007 when the old chieftain died, his family knew it ‘was their turn’ for chieftaincy so there was a lot of talk about who would be chosen.  The elders started talking to the community, and said ‘first we need to get a messenger’.  When his name was mentioned, he spoke to his uncle and told him that first he had to do ‘national service’ (work experience with a corporation) and that he also needed to be granted some land.  His uncle told him that he would discuss these needs with him when he was next in [Town 1].  However when his uncle came, they instead started the libations and rituals and ignored his requests.  They expected him to stay and be the messenger from then on, and also not to practice his faith.  He was not happy about that. He said ‘they never delivered on the demands’ he had.  He never was granted any land. His church leader even spoke to the elders on his behalf but they would not budge.  That was when he decided to leave. 

1. He claims that he lived in Kumasi from 2008 to 2014 ‘in hiding’.  He claims that the church assisted him.  It was through someone they introduced him to that he was convinced to change his name.  He gave evidence that due to the tribal marks on his cheeks, he could be readily identified.  When asked how changing his name would then give him any protection given the visible identifiers of his tribal marks, the applicant claimed that he also wasn’t sure- but the people around him thought it would be a good idea.  They arranged the passport.  He gave them his old passport. 

2. The applicant was asked about the information which suggests he applied for a visa to England, twice in 2011. As noted above, he initially claimed he didn’t know anything about that.  When asked how his identification details, such as his fingerprints were recorded, the applicant then said that he could now recall that ‘they’ did ask him to go into the [Country 2] embassy in Accra to give them but he wasn’t really sure why.  He claimed it was a lady that he was introduced to by the church who made all the arrangements. 

3. The applicant was asked about the current status of the messenger.  He confirmed that a new messenger was appointed when a new chief was appointed in late 2014 or early 2015.[1]  Nonetheless, there is ongoing unrest and anger towards him and his family.  Even though a new chief was finally appointed, there are still disputes and his family are unhappy because it was a man from the opposing family who was empowered.  There is ongoing bitterness. 

   [1] Approximate date of appointment of a new chief sourced from articles provided by the applicant including an article entitled “[Title redacted]” published in [Publication 2] [in] January 2015 which referred to three kingmakers who ‘engineered the installation of a new paramount chief recently’.  Also an article from [Publication 3] dated [in] July 2016 entitled “[Title redacted]” provided by the applicant which refers to ‘[deleted]’. 

4. At hearing, the applicant did not mention his claim as discussed with the delegate that it was also a requirement of the elders that he marry an ‘old woman’ over 60 years old.  He was asked about his claim to be married.  He said he was not married but also that he was married to a woman called [Ms B] who had supported him during his troubles. He claimed it was a betrothal and not official marriage.  To be honest, I am still not clear on the applicant’s marital status.  He stated that [Ms B] was not the woman the elders wanted him to marry, but his girlfriend.  However, the applicant did confirm that the marriage certificate on his visitor visa application was false, and that he had never been married as [Alias 1] in an official ceremony as the certificate suggests.

5. The applicant claimed that if he were to return to Ghana, he would still be at risk of being identified and harmed (murdered and tortured) by members of his own family who bear a grudge against him from 2008 (or 2009) when he abandoned the messenger’s role.  He did not believe that he would be safe in Accra even though I noted that he lived in Kumasi from 2008 (or 2009) to 2014 without being harmed – and that is a smaller city and closer to his village.  The applicant responded that Accra is not as big a city as I think.

6. The applicant agreed that persons who harm others over chieftaincy disputes are regularly charged and prosecuted for those offences (as reported in the articles he had provided and his evidence about his brother’s death) but claimed that they rarely result in a final guilty verdict.  He did not believe that police could protect him from harm, even if they wished to do so.  They did not have the capacity.  

7. The applicant said that he sends money home and is supporting his parents and his nephews and nieces.  They rely on his income to avoid the tribal life and educate the children.  If he returns and is murdered, there would be no one to bury his father. 

8. I asked whether his brother’s murder would be seen to ‘assuage’ the need for a sacrifice to the Gods (which he had referred to it in his evidence to the delegate).  He said that the particular sacrifice related to his rejection of the messenger role was personal to him.  The murder of his brother would not relieve that grievance.  However, he claimed that the murder of his brother was an example about how deep the resentment against him is still carried by his own tribe.  He claims his brother was murdered because of him. 

9. On 20 April 2021, I sent to the applicant a notice pursuant to s.424A which drew to his attention various information before the Tribunal which would potentially be the reason, or part of the reason, for the Tribunal affirming the decision under review.  This letter also provided the applicant with a copy of a certificate under s.438, which applied to a document which had already been discussed with him at hearing and was also referred to in the delegate’s decision.  The substantive content of that letter was as follows:

   You recently requested additional time to provide information about your brother’s
   death and the Tribunal has agreed to give you until 14 May 2021 to provide that
   information. If you are unable to or do not wish to provide any additional information
   as requested (an official death certificate and police report) within that time, please
   advise the Tribunal of that circumstance so that the Tribunal member can proceed to
   finalise the review, subject to your response (if any) to the information in this letter.
   At hearing, various matters relating to the fact of your application for a visitor visa and
   a protection visa in the name of [Alias 1] (rather than in your actual name of
   [the applicant]) were discussed with you and you were able to give
   evidence about these aspects of the review. 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. The purpose of
   this letter is to formally advise you about some of the information which is before the
   Tribunal in your case and which is potentially adverse to you, and to give you a further
   opportunity to provide evidence (in writing) about that information.
   Please note, however, that the Tribunal has not made up our mind about the
   information.
   The particulars of the information are:

   As part of your application for a visitor visa, various documents have been
   provided by you to the Department under the name [Alias 1]. These
   documents are as follows:
   a) Application for a Visitor Visa – Business Visitor Stream in the name [Alias 1] dated as received on 5 May 2014.
   b) Copy of Republic of Ghana passport number [redacted] in the name [Alias 1].
   c) [Company 2] employment introduction letter for [Alias 1]
   and payslips in the name of [Alias 1] from 1 January 2014 to 27 March
   2014 showing salary income.
   d) Ghana Revenue Authority Tax Clearance Certificate [Alias 1].
   e) Bank Statements with [bank] in the name of [Alias 1]
   f) Letter of Invitation to [a specified event in Melbourne]
   g) [Foundation 1] introduction letter to delegates, including [Alias 1] claimed to be Head of event and programmes.
   h) [Foundation 1] request for sponsorship to [local district agency].
   i) [Foundation 1] certificate of Business name registration.
   j) [Local district agency] confirmation of financial sponsorship and
   bank statement.
   k) Confirmation of registration in [specified event]
   l) Birth Certificate [Alias 1]: Father [named] Mother [named]. Date of birth [Date 1].
   m) Electoral Commission of Ghana registration voter card.
   n) Land Grant and indenture for [Alias 1] dated 14 November 2010.
   o) Marriage Certificate dated [December] 2012 between [Alias 1] and
   [Ms B], said to be married at [location] before [named reverend]
   p) [Foundation 1] Ghana Annual report from 31 January to 31
   December 2013.

   This information is relevant to the review because, as discussed at hearing, if the
   Tribunal finds that you have provided false information to the Department to obtain a
   visitor visa, including using false identity documents to obtain that visa under a
   different identity, this raises doubts about whether the Tribunal can rely on the
   documents you have provided to support your application for protection and also
   raises concerns about your general credibility. It is noted that these documents were
   discussed with you generally at hearing and you gave evidence that none of the
   documents lodged in [Alias 1]’s visitor visa application were legitimate,
   including the passport and birth certificate.

   The Department has also provided to the Tribunal a certificate under s.438 of the
   Migration Act which claims that certain documents on the Departmental file should not
   be disclosed to you because they contain information which might disclose the identity
   of a person or authority who gave that information in confidence. A copy of the
   certificate is attached for your reference. The Tribunal considers that the certificate is
   valid as the information covered by the document was clearly provided in confidence.
   However, the nature of that information is relevant to the issues in this review because
   it was the information which caused your false [Alias 1] identity to be
   discovered, and your true identity and visa history of [the applicant]
   identified. The Tribunal has decided to describe the content of the documents covered
   by the certificate to you and in fact has already discussed the nature of that
   information with you at hearing.

   The information covered by the certificate includes information provided by a foreign
   government about your visa history and includes confirmation of a biometric match
   between two identities. It also includes a copy of the front pages of your passport in
   the name of [the applicant] [passport number] and information about
   refusal of visas to [the applicant]. It also includes a summary of the identity
   information you provided to the Department of Home Affairs (referred to above) to
   establish a different identity in the name of [Alias 1].

   The information covered by the certificate (referred to above) is relevant to the review
   and as a matter of fairness, this notification gives you a more formal and additional
   opportunity to respond to the information if you wish to do so. The Information is
   adverse to you because, as discussed at hearing, it is further evidence that you have
   used a false Ghanaian identity to obtain a visitor visa to Australia and had also been
   refused a visa twice to the United Kingdom under your authentic identity which you
   failed to disclose as required to the Department of Home Affairs in any visa
   application, including your protection application. It is also relevant because in your
   interview with the delegate you initially denied the [Alias 1] identity was false,
   that you had ever applied for a [Country 2] visa or that you had ever been known as [the applicant].

   If the Tribunal relies on this information (visa applications in the name of [Alias 1] and supporting documents referred to above and the information from a
   foreign government identifying you and about visa applications made in the [applicant’s]
   name) in making its decision, the Tribunal may conclude that you have not conducted
   yourself in an honest and forthright manner in your migration applications lodged with
   the Department of Home Affairs; are not a truthful witness; and that your protection
   claims and the information and evidence you have provided in support of your
   protection application (or part of that evidence and information) are not reliable and
   should not be accepted. This would then be the reason, or part of the reason, for
   affirming the decision that is under review.

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

   Your comments or response should be received by 4 May 2021…

10. The applicant did not provide any response to the information provided on 20 April 2021 by 4 May 2021. 

11. As noted above, I have accepted that the applicant is not [Alias 1] but is [the applicant].  According to his passport as tendered to the [Country 2] authorities as part of two visa applications in 2011, he was born on [Date 2] in Kumasi. 

12. I do not accept that he is or has ever been married, to a person called [Ms B] or any other woman.  The applicant stated under oath that he was not married but when asked why he said he was on his application for protection, the applicant suggested that he was engaged and that culturally this means the same thing.  I do not accept this explanation. 

13. I do not believe it is safe to rely on any of the applicant’s written or oral evidence about his personal history as truthful.  I have placed no weight on the purported Ghanaian High Court declarations lodged nor any documents which relate to grants of land to, birth of, marriage of or employment of [Alias 1].  I consider those documents to be false and manufactured to support the applicant’s protection claims.  The only consistent aspect of his evidence is his claim that he was chosen by his tribe to be the messenger of the gods and after an initiation he decided against that role, causing tumult to the tribe which was in the middle of a chieftaincy dispute, that he left the village out of fear of being harmed  in 2008 or 2009 and has not returned.  Since then, he claims to have been recognised in Kumasi which caused him to quit his job and continue living in hiding because he had been recognised. However, his evidence is that he remained living in Kumasi.  He travelled to Australia in August 2014.

14. Like the delegate, I do not know why the applicant lied about so many aspects of his identity and family background as part of his visa applications.  I do not know why he adhered to lies until he could no longer do so, and why he didn’t take the opportunity to correct the record with the delegate as soon as he could do so.   It is not clear why he would not apply for protection in his legitimate identity once he was safely out of Ghana.  

15. Based on the several news reports and articles provided by the applicant and available over the internet generally, I accept that there was a chieftaincy dispute in [Town 1] and that the dispute may have led to some inter-tribal violence, though I do not accept that the chieftaincy dispute involved the applicant other than as an ordinary member of the community/tribe.  I am not satisfied that the applicant had any part or role in that dispute or any profile within that tribal community.  

16. I have considered the documents the applicant submitted related to the death of his brother.  I am prepared to accept them as proof that his brother died [in] March 2019 and that he was poisoned.  The documents he provided are not evidence of any motive for his death or investigation into any link to the applicant’s claimed troubles.  No police report, record of arrests or other information has been provided by the applicant which refers to the applicant’s claimed dispute, the chieftaincy nor the appointment of a messenger for the gods.  The documents do not suggest that the applicant’s brother was murdered due to any connection to the applicant.  I have also taken into consideration the fact that he claims his own and his brother’s surviving family has remained in [Town 1] after his brother’s death (apart from the applicant’s parents who he claims have moved away) and consider that this tends to suggest that it is more likely that his brother’s murder was not due to any family connection to the applicant nor ongoing tribal enmity towards the family. 

17. I am not satisfied that the true reasons for the applicant’s decision to change his identity have been disclosed.  As noted above, he claims that he can readily be identified as a tribe member throughout Ghana due to his tribal markings – and could not explain how, given that visible identification, changing his name would (or did) therefore provide him with any added protection from the harms he claims to fear from members of his own or any rival tribe. 

18. The applicant’s written and oral evidence throughout the review process has been changeable and is internally confused and inconsistent in various aspects. On a number of occasions, the applicant confirmed an aspect of his earlier claims and, only when found out in a lie, did he acknowledge the falsity of that information or evidence.  Some examples of the applicant’s confused and inconsistent evidence are discussed above, however these are not the only matters which caused concern, and it is his evidence overall that I found to be wholly unreliable.  My concerns about his veracity, the provision of false and misleading documentation and information in support of his claims, his changeable evidence and various inconsistencies lead me to conclude that the applicant is not a witness of truth, a finding I make reluctantly, and rarely.  I consider that he has demonstrated at every stage of his migration history a willingness to provide false information and evidence in support of his applications and the consequence of that is that no part of his substantive protection claims can be accepted because his overall credibility is totally lacking. 

19. Bearing in mind my findings about the applicant’s lack of credibility, I do not accept that the applicant is from a royal family (the Ananagya Aduana Royal Family) in Ghana.  I accept, based on the independently reported articles available, that objectively there appears to have been a chieftaincy dispute in [Town 1] which commenced in 1995 and that there are ongoing enmities between the Ananagya and Assante tribes despite a new chief being appointed in 2015. However, I do not accept that the applicant was chosen as messenger of the gods in [Town 1] in the middle of that hostile chieftaincy dispute nor that he rejected that role because he was unable to continue to practice his Christian beliefs as well as perform the ritual role.  I do not accept that he is being hunted or would be harmed by any member of his own family or tribe because he rejected the role of messenger of the gods nor that he would be harmed by any member of the opposing Assante tribe due to his being a member of the Ananagya Tribe. I do not accept his claim that members of his tribe consider him ‘a devil’ or that they would severely harm, detain or kill him.

20. It follows that I do not accept his claim that members of his tribe visited him in Kumasi and threatened to kill him if he did not return to [Town 1] to perform the messenger’s role.   I do not accept that he travelled to [Country 5] and [Country 4] in 2011 ‘to seek safety’ without success in 2011 or 2012.  I do not accept that he lived in hiding in Kumasi from 2008 to 2014 because of his fear of harm, that he changed his name due to fear of harm because of that dispute, or that he has a genuine fear of returning to Ghana due to the chieftaincy dispute or because of his failure to honour the demands of the elders of his tribe and undertake the role of messenger of the gods, or for any other reason.  I have also noted that the applicant did not claim that he tried to relocate within or outside Ghana despite claiming that he was in danger of being found and murdered even though he remained in Kumasi (only one and a half hours by car from [Town 1] according to Google maps) and still managed to avoid harm despite his claimed fear of harm from 2008 to 2014.

21. I do not accept that the applicant was threatened due to a decision not to leave Christianity or because his Christian beliefs conflict with the Fetish priest’s demands of him.  I do not accept that the applicant has ever faced persecution due to his Christian faith.  I do not accept that there is a real chance that he would face such persecution now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

22. Due to my fundamental findings about his credibility, none of the applicant’s claims are accepted.   

23. The applicant has not established any of his claims, and no other claims arise on the facts and circumstances before me.

1. I conclude that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Ghana.    

2. For the reasons given above, I am 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).

3. Because none of the applicant’s claims are accepted,(and no other claims arise on the facts and circumstances before me) I find that there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of him being returned to Ghana, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant (or any) harm.

4. I am not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

5. 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

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

   Anne Grant
   Member