1619226 (Refugee)

1619226 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 5988 (15 August 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1619226
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Liberia
MEMBER:C. Packer
DATE:15 August 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
Statement made on 15 August 2019 at 2:56pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Liberia – Federal Circuit Court remittal – procedural fairness – failure to make enquiries with proposed witnesses – particular social group – NGO worker – targeted for harm by ex-combatants – outstanding payments – credibility issues – inconsistent evidence – fabricated claims – fraudulent documents – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65, 424
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES
MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
SZBYR v MIAC (2007) 235 ALR 609

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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration (the delegate) to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant is a man aged [specified], born in Liberia and a citizen of Liberia.
The applicant arrived in Australia [in] January 2012, as a holder of a [temporary] visa, and had travelled on a Liberian passport issued on [in] 2009 and valid to [2014].
On 6 February 2012 the applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa. On 4 May 2012 the applicant attended an interview with a delegate. On 29 May 2012 the delegate refused the application.
On 6 June 2012 the applicant applied for review of the delegate’s decision. On 11 July 2013 the first Tribunal (differently constituted) affirmed the decision of the delegate to refuse the visa.
The applicant sought a review of the first Tribunal’s decision from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. [In] November 2014 the Court ordered by consent that the Tribunal decision be quashed and the application for review be re-determined according to law. This was on the basis that an integer of the applicant’s claims had not been considered. Namely, that in Liberia arms caches were discovered and people detained as a result of information the applicant had procured from ex-combatants. As well, the first Tribunal also erred by failing to sufficiently consider affidavit and correspondence evidence which was corroborative of the applicant’s claims.
On 2 March 2015 the applicant attended a Tribunal hearing with the second Tribunal (differently constituted). On 11 March 2015 the second Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate to refuse the visa.
The applicant sought a review of the second Tribunal’s decision from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. [In] October 2016 the Court ordered that the second Tribunal decision of 11 March 2015 be quashed and the application for review be re-determined according to law. This was on the basis that the second Tribunal failed to make enquiries of a correspondent in Liberia (by telephone) to pursue the veracity and authenticity of the correspondent’s affidavit, when invited to do so.
On 26 October 2018 the applicant attended my Tribunal hearing. In his hearing response sent 8 October 2018 he had requested three witnesses be phoned: [Mr A] (correspondent in Liberia); [Mr B] (former boss in Liberia); [Mr C] (former [colleague] in Liberia). Then on 18 October 2019 he updated his witness request and listed just [Mr A] and [Mr B]. I note that the applicant has at times referred to [Mr B] as [Alias 1].
However, the applicant attended several hours late and the delayed commencement led to a shortened hearing. I therefore adjourned the hearing to 8 November 2018. In his hearing response sent 3 November 2018 he did not request any witnesses be phoned. Nonetheless, at the 8 November 2018 resumed hearing I phoned and got evidence from [Mr A] (correspondent in Liberia). I also made attempts to phone [Mr B] in Liberia but he did not pick up, and the applicant stated [Mr B] is very hard to get.
During the phone call the applicant directly asked [Mr A] whether he would prepare another statement and get a police report and send these documents to the applicant. At the end of the hearing the applicant requested a month to get further documents from Liberia. I pointed out he had had years to provide information and provided him with two weeks to provide any evidence he considered would assist his application. I pointed out that documents and evidence from the time of the claimed occurrences may be given more weight than evidence recently made for the purpose of assisting his claims.
On 9 November 2018, under the Tribunal’s general power to make enquiries, I twice phoned [Mr C] in Liberia, however, he did not pick up.
The Tribunal next invited the applicant to a hearing on 10 January 2019 and stated in the invitation letter: “In your hearing response of 20 July 2018 you requested the member take oral evidence from Mr [B] and Mr [C]. At the hearing the member will seek to phone those witnesses.”
The applicant responded on 1 January 2019 and stated that [Mr C] was unavailable for a phone interview until 25 January 2019, and [Mr B] was unavailable for a phone interview until 1 February 2019. The applicant accordingly asked to postpone the hearing to a date when the witnesses would both be available.
The Tribunal granted the applicant’s request and rescheduled the hearing to 8 February 2019 at 9:30am. However, on the morning of 8 February 2019 the applicant phoned the Tribunal and stated he would not be attending the hearing and claimed he had sent this advice the day before. The Tribunal advised him there was no record that he had sent a submission on 7 February 2019. On 8 February 2019 at 9:29am the applicant emailed the Tribunal to state that due to the time difference between Australia, Liberia and the [Country 1] “it is impossible to get the two witnesses on the 8^th of February 2019 to testify”. He advised that “I was able to come to an agreement on a mutual date with each of the witnesses, which is the 15 of March 2019. Henceforth, I am requesting that the hearing be rescheduled or postponed to the above mentioned date.” He did not attend at the scheduled time and place on 8 February 2019.
Despite the applicant’s non-attendance at the scheduled hearing, based on the applicant’s advice and request, the Tribunal agreed to reschedule the hearing to 15 March 2019 at 12:30pm. In his hearing response sent 11 March 2019 (and again on 14 March) the applicant confirmed his attendance on the scheduled date and time. However, at the hearing on 15 March 2019:
·[Mr C] answered the Tribunal’s phone call but he stated it was early in the morning in Liberia and he would not give evidence. He suggested he might give evidence if the Tribunal phoned several hours later.
·[Mr B] answered the Tribunal’s phone call but he stated it was [late] where he was in [Country 1] and he was in the middle of a training session and he refused to talk further.
At the hearing I then pointed out to the applicant that the hearing had been rescheduled to this date at his request, and he had known of the date and hearing time for some time, and he should have advised his witnesses that the Tribunal would be phoning them. I indicated that it seems unlikely [Mr B] was in a training session [so late in the evening]. The applicant responded that he had advised his witnesses and it was not his fault if they would not give evidence. At the hearing on 15 March 2019 I then proposed that the applicant contact each witness and get from them a suitable date and time for the Tribunal to phone each witness. I suggested that for a phone call to [Mr B] in [Country 1] time zone it appeared there had been about a [number] hour time difference and so a hearing time of 9:30am would be suitable as the time in [Country 1] would be [in the evening]. I suggested that for a phone call to [Mr C] in Liberia it appeared there had been a minus eleven hour time difference and so a hearing time of 5:30pm would be suitable as the time in Liberia would be about 6:30am. I did not give a time limit for the applicant’s advice but I asked that he not take a long while to provide the dates and times for the separate hearings.
On 9 April 2019 the Tribunal advised the applicant that a significant time had passed and the Tribunal now provided him with time up to 16 April 2019 to provide suitable dates for hearings to phone his witnesses. The Tribunal advised that if suitable dates were not provided by 16 April 2019 the Tribunal would proceed to a decision without taking any further action to contact those witnesses.
On 15 April 2019 the applicant advised he had found it very difficult to get a date and time from each witness that would not jeopardise their schedules. He added that:
I am taken aback that you have threaten to take a decision not considering the about mentioned situation, I feel a bit threaten and coerce, some of your comments come across as been very hostile toward me which get me wondering if I am ever going to get a fair hearing.
Nonetheless, he also advised that [Mr B] had given him the date of 7 May 2019 between 12-1pm Australian time. He advised [Mr C] was due back in Monrovia during Easter and he might get a date and time for that witness then.
The Tribunal next scheduled a hearing for 7 May 2019 at 12pm. The applicant attended late but I decided to proceed with the hearing. At the hearing on 7 May 2019 [Mr B] gave evidence by phone. The applicant also stated [Mr C] had given him the date of 27 May 2019 at 10am Australian time.
The Tribunal next scheduled a hearing for 27 May 2019 at 10am.
In a hearing response received on 26 May 2019 the applicant:
·Indicated he had attached a letter from his bank regarding his savings account, but there was no attachment. He later produced a bank letter at the hearing.
·Asked that at the hearing another witness be phoned ([Senior Official 1]) or he give evidence by post.
·He has been informed that his story was written about in the [Publication 1]. He is yet to confirm that and hopefully get more information as soon as possible.
·He requested two weeks to get and provide a copy of [Publication 1].
On 27 May 2019 the applicant arrived about an hour and a half late. Nonetheless, I decided to proceed with the hearing. At the hearing on 27 May 2019 [Mr C] gave evidence by phone.
At the hearing I also offered to phone [Senior Official 1] if the applicant had a phone number. The applicant then advised me that he could not provide a contact phone number for [Senior Official 1] as he had just lost his mobile. I pointed out he had proposed the witness give evidence about a police report that the applicant claimed was made in 2011. I advised the applicant that after consideration I had decided not to adjourn the hearing to a future date, but would give him two weeks to provide any additional information he wished to support his claims and this could include evidence from the police and [Publication 1]. As well, I pointed out my general concerns that in the Tribunal’s phone calls to people in Liberia whom he had put forward as witnesses, their identities were not confirmed over the phone and the weight I gave their evidence may depend on my assessment of his narrative and evidence. At that point in the hearing I indicated I did not propose at that time to seek the Australian High Commission[1] to use its scant resources to gather evidence on his behalf and verify his witnesses.
[1] The AHC Ghana deals with Liberia
During the hearing on 27 May 2019 I put information to the applicant pursuant to the s.424AA procedure. The applicant stated he wished to respond after the hearing but he also requested the Tribunal send him the Tribunal’s concerns in writing so that he could respond to the written concerns. Accordingly, the Tribunal sent a letter on 28 May 2019 pursuant to s.424A that invited him to comment on or respond to certain information which I considered would, subject to his comments or response, be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. The Tribunal’s letter used different wording to the wording I used in the s.424AA procedure but the information and my concerns were the same. The comments or response was due to be received by 11 June 2019, and the Tribunal then granted him further time to 18 June 2019. On 17 June 2019 he next requested further time to 2 July 2019 as he said he needed adequate time to respond to the Tribunal’s letter which included seeking legal assistance, and information from Liberia. The Tribunal granted further time to 2 July 2019, and then at his subsequent request, further time to respond to 12 July 2019.
On 15 July 2019 he responded to the Tribunal’s letter dated 28 May 2019, and I have carefully considered his comments in this decision.
I have discussed the review proceedings since 26 October 2018 in some detail to show why there were a number of scheduled and rescheduled hearings. The Tribunal had difficulties in getting the witnesses’ evidence on the phone, albeit the difficulties were ostensibly in the availability of each witness and then their willingness to talk when phoned. The applicant was unrepresented before me, and at hearing I discussed the evidence and my significant credibility concerns with his narrative and evidence and my credibility concerns with the evidence of his witnesses in great detail, and I have fully considered the applicant’s responses and explanations. I note the Tribunal’s s.424A letter of 28 May 2019 gave the applicant an additional opportunity to address adverse information and a number of my credibility concerns, particularly the concerns I had put to him at the final hearing on 27 May 2019. The Tribunal granted him further time to 12 July 2019 to respond, and this period of over six weeks acknowledged his submission that he was seeking information from Liberia. In his written response received 15 July 2019 he also sought further time to get evidence from the Liberian National Police and [Publication 1]. He mentioned these sources in his email of 26 May 2019 and since then he has now had more than two months to get information from those sources. As well, I note that he has long indicated he is seeking such information: his former representative’s letter of 31 May 2012 (seven years ago) sent to the Department stated in part “The client has also informed our office that he is still awaiting documentation regarding the Police abstract.”; and at my hearing on 8 November 2018 (nine months ago) he directly asked the witness ([Mr A]- resident correspondent of [Publication 2]) on the phone to prepare and send him a report and to get a police report. More broadly, since he made his application in February 2012 he has had seven and a half years to investigate and gather relevant information including police reports and newspaper articles if they existed. I acknowledge the applicant’s submissions about the difficulties in getting documents/information from Liberia but I nonetheless note he has been able to get documents/information from Liberia over the past several years including at the delegate’s interview on 4 May 2012 when he first produced documents obtained and sent to him from Liberia (death certificates issued [in] 2012). Further, in light of my findings later in this decision that the applicant has provided unreliable documents and he is not a witness of truth, I am not satisfied that a genuine report from the Liberian National Police exists and I am not satisfied that a genuine article [in] [Publication 1] discusses the applicant’s story.
In sum, after considering all of the material now before the Tribunal including the applicant’s written response on 15 July 2019, and in light of my findings later in this decision that the applicant has provided unreliable documents and he is not a witness of truth and his witnesses have not been witnesses of truth, I have decided not to provide the applicant with time to provide information to the Tribunal, additional to the lengthy time he has already had and the lengthy time he has already been given by the Tribunal. As well, I have decided not to phone his witnesses in order to put credibility concerns to them and get their response, or phone the Liberian National Police, or send a request to the AHC Ghana to use its resources to undertake additional investigations in Liberia as requested by the applicant.
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether the applicant is entitled to complementary protection. A summary of the relevant law is set out in Attachment A. The applicant’s narrative is centred on his involvement with ex-combatants in Liberia which led them to attack him and his family in Monrovia, causing family members to be disappeared, harmed and killed. He then fled the country. However, my great concerns with significant elements of the applicant’s narrative and evidence lead me to disbelieve the story in its entirety. My assessment follows.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE, FINDINGS

Background

The applicant’s protection visa application provided some basic background information, and the applicant supplemented this with further details at Tribunal hearings. In the written application, the applicant stated that he was born and raised in [Town 1], Liberia. He is a Christian and belongs to the ethnic group Americo-Liberians. He is well-educated and holds [various qualifications], and worked as a [Occupation 1]. He is married and he listed in his family unit: wife [and numerous] children. He also listed other relatives: father, mother, [several siblings] and [a number of] family members with relationship not stated. In the application he indicated for all of them their country of residence was ‘unknown’, and in his statement dated 3 February 2012 he stated a few family members had been killed and the “whereabouts of the rest of my family and those who depend on me are unknown”. On 1 May 2012 he submitted a list of 20 more dependants. The applicant’s protection visa application showed travel to countries in Africa: [specified].
At my hearing in October 2018 the applicant said that he has worked in Australia, first in [Workplace 1], then for [Workplace 2] in their [specified] department. He has had relationships in Australia and is seeing someone currently. His wife has divorced him and gone to [Country 1]. He has [a number of] biological children: [Some] live with the ex-wife’s sister in Monrovia and the ex-wife is trying to get them to [Country 1]; he does not know the whereabouts of [one of the children]. He stated the whereabouts of his many dependants and father continue to be unknown. He is in contact with his mother and she currently lives in Monrovia with her cousins. He is in contact with his [sibling]. Other siblings are in Liberia and some may have gone to the [Country 1].
Country information[2] shows Liberia has a population of 4.6 million, with its capital Monrovia, and a GDP/capita of $452.
[2] Freedom in the World 2018 Liberia profile, [ of claims
1. The applicant claims he will be targeted for harm by ex-combatants if returned to Liberia as a result of his former activities with [Organisation 1], a non-government, not-for-profit and non-political organisation. While employed by the [Organisation 1] as a [Occupation 2] in 2010, he was tasked by his boss Mr [D] to negotiate with and arrange payment to ex-combatants and/or mercenaries who had previously fought in Liberia and the Ivory Coast. The payments were to be made in exchange for information provided by those persons leading to the arrest of mercenaries, their recruiters and ex-combatants and the recovery of illegal arms within Liberia.
1. He commenced significant negotiations with [number of] ex-combatants in 2010, paying them an initial amount of [amount 1] on the understanding that a further [amount 2] would be payable after arrests were made on the basis of information provided. On the basis of information provided by these ex-combatants and their contacts: in late March 2011 a [target] [was] arrested; in April 2011 a cache of arms and ammunition was discovered in [County 1] and [another target] arrested; [in] May 2011 a senior mercenary commander named [Mr E] and twelve of his fighters were arrested; and in early June 2011 an arms cache was recovered in [County 2] along with [a number of] accomplices.
2. The ex-combatant leaders then demanded he make the final payment of [amount 2]. However, he told them there would be a delay in payment because he had a month of training for work in [Country 2]. He then travelled to [Country 2] from [July] to [August] 2011 for that training. When he returned to Monrovia [in] August 2011 he immediately went to the [Organisation 1] offices to pick up the remaining money to deliver to the ex-combatants. However, he discovered his boss Mr [D] had resigned and left the country. His new boss Mr [B] told him that the old boss had left no information about the plan and that [Organisation 1] would not be involved in such a matter. He then moved his immediate family to Monrovia for their safety before calling the ex-combatant leaders to explain the situation. On hearing that they would not be paid they went on a rampage and burned down the [Organisation 1]’s training centre and the applicant’s home in [County 1], and abducted his father and dependants. He sought assistance from the police but they could not provide security to the applicant and his family, and so they went into hiding in his sister-in-law’s house in Monrovia.
3. On 8 December 2011 he signed an application for an [temporary] visa to travel to Australia for a conference. He then decided to go to the media to get the attention of the public, and so he made contact with a correspondent named [Mr A] of [Publication 2]. They made an appointment to meet [in] December 2011, but the correspondent unexpectedly came to his sister-in-law’s house at [specified time] [in] December 2011 and stayed overnight. About [specified time] that night the house was attacked with heavy gunfire and grenade explosion, resulting in [a number of] people in the household being killed. However, the applicant escaped through the back of the house without knowing the whereabouts or wellbeing of any family members in the house or of the correspondent. In the morning a few hours later he received a phone call from an unidentified man telling him that his family would be killed, and he would lose property and be killed anywhere in Liberia, if he did not pay them the cash promised. Right after that the correspondent phoned and convinced the applicant that his safety was paramount and took him to the [Country 2] Embassy in Monrovia where he stayed for several days. While there, his [temporary] visa was granted and so he flew to [Country 2] and travelled to Australia.
4. If he returns to Liberia he will be found and killed by the ex-combatants because of the outstanding debt. In submissions the applicant claims he has a well-founded fear of persecution in Liberia arising from Membership of a particular social group, of the [Organisation 1].
  Evidence
5. The evidence before the Tribunal includes the following material (not all is listed):
  ·the applicant’s Protection visa application form lodged on 6 February 2012, which includes a statement dated 3 February 2012 that gives reasons for seeking protection in Australia
  ·passport pages
  ·the Protection visa decision record (‘delegate’s decision’) dated 29 May 2012, which is the subject of this review
  ·the application for review, which has attached to it a copy of the delegate’s decision provided by the applicant
  ·several statements and submissions, including the applicant’s last submission of 15 July 2019
  ·identity and education documents, including a birth certificate
  ·three Death certificates, and an email from Liberian Ministry of Health and Social Welfare of [August] 2012 (verifying the death certificates)
  ·two photos, of a burnt building and a derelict site
  ·letter of 20 March 2012 signed by [Mr B] ([Senior Official 2] [Organisation 1])
  ·statement of 20 March 2012 from [Mr A] (a resident correspondent of [Publication 2])
  ·letters/emails attesting to the existence of [Organisation 1] ([Department 1][Mr I][Details deleted]); [Senior Official 1] suggested as a contact to verify [Organisation 1]
  ·the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade report released [in] September 2012 (that stated DFAT had been unable to confirm [Organisation 1]’s existence, and provided to the applicant for comments [in] January 2013)
  ·country information
  ·counsellor report of 19 February 2015 concerning applicant
  ·Tribunal hearings, and first Tribunal decision of 11 July 2013 and second Tribunal decision of 11 March 2015 (while noting that I have not relied on the findings of the first and second Tribunals)
6. Evidence before the Tribunal also includes the applicant’s Application for a [temporary] visa signed by him (at hearing he confirmed his signature) [in] December 2011 and received/stamped in the AHC [City 1] [in] December 2011.[3] With the application were documents including:
  ·letter dated 5 December 2011 signed by [Mr F] ([Senior Official 3])
  ·marriage certificate; his children’s birth certificates; training certificates; copy of his passport
  ·a certificate of registration for his personal [business] at [dated] [in] May 2011
  ·his [bank] account page and [a bank] letter dated [in] December 2011 sent by the bank to the AHC [City 1] ‘per the request of [the applicant]’
  ·a letter from [Organisation 2] dated 2 December 2011 addressed to him at the [Organisation 1] office in Monrovia
  ·an Affidavit of support by Mr [D] in Liberia, [Senior Official 2] of the [Organisation 1]
  [3] The Tribunal discussed this evidence at hearing and through a s424AA procedure and later in the Tribunal’s letter of 28 May 2019 pursuant to s424A
7. The applicant’s Application for a [temporary] visa and the attached documents were discussed with him at my hearing. The [visa] application had been detailed by the applicant in his application and also in the delegate’s decision.[4] The Tribunal’s s.424A letter dated 28 May 2019 discussed how the information and documents in his [temporary] visa were relevant to the review. The letter dated 5 December 2011 signed by [Mr F] ([Senior Official 3]), and the Affidavit of support by Mr [D] in Liberia, [Senior Official 2] of the [Organisation 1], were additionally discussed at hearing through the s.424AA procedure and subsequently in the Tribunal’s s.424A letter dated 28 May 2019. This is further discussed in my following assessment of claims.
  [4] A copy provided to the Tribunal by the applicant
8. The applicant appeared before the first and second Tribunals to give evidence and present arguments. I also scheduled hearings for the applicant and his witnesses to give evidence as follows: 26 October 2018; 8 November 2018; 10 January 2019 (postponed at applicant’s request); 8 February 2019 (he failed to attend); 15 March 2019 (each witness answered phone call but declined to give evidence at that time); 7 May 2019 ([Mr B] gave evidence); 27 May 2019 ([Mr C] gave evidence). All hearings were conducted in English and the applicant and witnesses spoke and understood English.
9. At the hearings I asked whether he was well and able to talk about his story, and he stated he was. On 26 October 2018 he also discussed his [health condition] that he said affects him physically and not mentally, and how he found it difficult to talk about the past traumatic occurrences, and on 8 November 2018 he added a general comment that he had some [physical] problems.
10. The Department had not issued a certificate under s438 of the Act.
  Assessment of claims: credibility
11. The applicant claims to be a national of Liberia. All the available evidence, including the applicant’s oral evidence, documents from Liberia, copies of his Liberian passport and his familiarity with Liberia, supports his claim to be a Liberian national. Liberia is therefore the country of reference for the purpose of assessing the applicant’s protection claims, and the receiving country when assessing his claims against the complementary protection grounds. Having considered the material before the Tribunal including the applicant’s evidence given at the hearing, I accept he has the identity he claims.
His mental health
1. The applicant has at times said his mental health problems have affected his ability to give evidence at interview/hearings. Although he suggested he may provide a more recent report, the applicant has provided only one report from a mental health professional dated 19 February 2015 (Volunteer counsellor at [Organisation 3]) and its key points are:
  ·Dr [G] of the [Organisation 3] had diagnosed the applicant with PTSD and he had been expressing suicidal ideation. He had been prescribed medication for depression. The applicant was then referred to the counsellor.
  ·The applicant had had 15 counselling sessions that commenced [in] May 2014.
  ·He intended to continue to seek counselling.
  ·He was preoccupied with feelings of guilt associated with the work he did with child soldiers in Liberia.
  ·He had spent time as a volunteer working with [a specified community] in [Australian State 1] and this benefitted his mental health, but he was unable to accept a job offered as he had no work rights and this added to his feelings of helplessness.
  ·The Ebola outbreak in Liberia had made him fear for his family’s safety.
  ·He is attempting to manage his symptoms but with limited success. He is anxious about the upcoming Tribunal hearing.
  ·He may find it difficult to give evidence because of his anxiety and the distress of being asked to recall traumatic memories, and this should be taken into account at hearing.
2. The applicant’s statement dated 25 March 2015 discussed his mental health, with key points:
  ·Since 2014 he had consults with a psychologist.
  ·He finds it difficult to talk about his experiences in Liberia as remembering causes him distress and trauma. His memory is affected and he has difficulty remembering dates and events in detail. This has previously affected his ability to clarify details of his experiences with the Department and first Tribunal.
3. The applicant’s statement of 26 October 2018 raised similar points about his mental health:
  ·Since 2014 he has regularly consulted with a psychologist. He would provide a report if he sought and got one.
  ·He finds it difficult to talk about his experiences in Liberia as remembering causes him distress and trauma. This has previously affected his ability to clarify details of his experiences with the Department and Tribunal.
  ·In December 2014 a fire in his home in Australia exacerbated his mental health condition.
4. At hearing when I asked about his mental health the applicant said he consulted a psychologist weekly, and he discussed the trauma he suffered after an explosion in Monrovia, and then [incidents] in Australia. He stated the counselling has helped him. He added he finds Australian culture to be different as it is based on the individual and for example one cannot just pop in uninvited to someone’s place.
5. Based on the material before the Tribunal I accept that the applicant has mental health problems. But as I discuss later in my decision I do not accept his psychological problems have been/are attributable to the occurrences in Liberia that he claims. I note that at my hearings he presented in a relaxed, attentive, chatty and articulate manner and he listened to questions and gave comprehensive answers, and during our discussion appeared to well remember each element of his narrative including dates and names. At my hearings he appeared to be confident and fully composed and he did not show difficulties such as anxiety/distress in talking about past experiences. I consider that his mental health and health problems did not prevent or hinder him from understanding my questions or from giving evidence. I assess that he was competent to give evidence and had a full opportunity to put forward his story and arguments, and I considered his mental health problems when I assessed his evidence given at the delegate’s interview and all of the Tribunal hearings. As well, as the applicant’s evidence suggested that he would seek counselling and medication into the future, at hearing I put to him that country information[5] shows mental health services and medications are available in Liberia should he return there and decide to seek such services. He responded that he would not mind going back to Liberia if it is safe to do so as he could use his work skills there. Later at hearing he discussed the work he has performed in Australia, the job offers he has been unable to accept due to his migration status, and the work he envisages he will do in Australia in the future. He did not state that he would be prevented or hindered from getting work for any health or mental health reason if returned to Liberia. At hearing he has discussed his home and the family, relatives and friends he currently has in Liberia and in Monrovia, and I find he has family support available when he returns.
  [5] World Health Organisation report, 2017, Culture and Mental Health in Liberia: A Primer, [ The Carter Center report, 15 September 2017, Liberia Significantly Increases Number of Mental Health Professionals and Services, [>
  In light of the foregoing discussion and having particular regard to the applicant’s mental health needs here, the nature of the symptoms discussed in the 2015 report now over four years ago, and the applicant’s account of his psychological state- I am not satisfied that in Liberia in the reasonably foreseeable future the applicant will have psychiatric disorders that will attract the adverse attention of anyone in Liberia such that they will seek to harm him. In Liberia, I am not satisfied there is a real chance that his future condition will result in him experiencing serious harm such as a threat to his life or liberty; significant physical harassment; significant physical ill-treatment; significant economic hardship that threatens his capacity to subsist; or denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens his capacity to subsist. For the same reasons I am not satisfied his future condition will result in a real risk that he will suffer significant harm for the purposes of complementary protection.
  His story of the occurrences in Liberia
6. The applicant’s narrative is centred on his involvement with ex-combatants in Liberia which led them to attack him and his family in Monrovia, causing family members to be disappeared, harmed and killed, and which led him to flee. However, my great concerns with significant elements of the applicant’s narrative and evidence lead me to disbelieve the story in its entirety, as I now discuss.
  His work for [Organisation 1])
7. The [Organisation 1] had been a non-government, not-for-profit and non-political organisation in Liberia. The applicant provided three letters/emails to evidence the organisation. A letter dated 18 January 2013 from [Person H] in the [Department 1] in Liberia indicated that [Person H] had worked with the [Organisation 1] over the past three years up to April 2012 at which time it said it was ceasing its operations. A letter dated 21 January 2013 from the [Department 1] in Liberia indicated both organisations had worked together in implementing [projects] in parts of rural Liberia. An email dated 16 January 2013 from [Mr I] in Monrovia stated his organisation had partnered to April 2012 with the [Organisation 1] in implementing [projects] ‘along Liberia bordering communities of Guinea, Sierra Leone and Cote d’Ivoire’.
8. At hearing the applicant stated he had been a [Occupation 3] for the organisation, and his tasks as [Occupation 2] had been in a [specified] role, to [undertake certain duties] on behalf of the organisation. He stated the [employees] then [helped] the ex-combatants in [certain areas], so that they could function in society. The existence of the [Organisation 1] and the applicant’s work in the organisation is further supported by a [Organisation 1] letter dated 5 December 2011[6] that stated in part:
  [The applicant] is in the employ of the [Organisation 1]) and its implementing partners [details deleted]. [Organisation 1] is a regional base Non for profit and Non-Government organization.
  [6] In his [temporary] visa application and discussed at hearing and in the Tribunal letter of 28 May 2019
9. In sum, based on the material before the Tribunal, I accept the applicant worked for the [Organisation 1] as a [Occupation 2] in the period that he claims.
  His boss [Mr D] tasks him to liaise with ex-combatants
10. In his narrative, he claims he was summoned to an urgent meeting [in] October 2010 in Monrovia by his boss [Mr D] who he said was the [Organisation 1] [Senior Official 2] for Liberia. [Mr D] put to him that ‘the authorities in Liberia’ wanted the [Organisation 1] to play a role in maintaining peace in the region. This would involve a scheme whereby large sums of money would be given to ex-combatants around the country for information of a security nature. In the applicant’s narrative, [Mr D] explained this was because Liberia was due to have general elections in 2011 and the political unrest in Ivory Coast attracted thousands of former Liberian rebels, which could possibly spread back to Liberia and erode the fragile peace in the Mano River Union sub-region. The applicant stated the amount to be offered to the ex-combatant leaders was higher than that promised to a mercenary when taking part in the war in Ivory Coast[7].
  [7] His statement of 3 February 2012 (provided with his application to the Department) at paragraphs 4-13
11. His reference to war in the Ivory Coast The applicant’s reference to the war in the Ivory Coast was odd, as country information shows the Ivory Coast’s second civil war began the following year in March 2011. Tribunal 2 discussed this concern with the applicant at hearing. In submissions and at my hearing when this was discussed as an issue, the applicant submitted that there had been ongoing conflict in the Mano River region countries for many years and the long standing conflict is what he had been referencing when he spoke of the war in Ivory Coast. I acknowledge that country information shows there had been conflict in the region at different times over a long period. Accordingly, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I accept that he had merely been referencing the episodic conflict in the Mano River region countries over the years.
12. His claimed scant knowledge of the arrangement The applicant has told the Tribunal that [Mr D] kept the scheme totally secret from the [Organisation 1]. At my hearing when I asked about the particular authorities involved, the applicant speculated the money came from maybe government or ECOWAS or a security or regional security body. But he did not know why [Mr D] - a director in a non-government, not-for-profit and non-political [organisation] - had been particularly entrusted with such a high-risk security scheme and he did not directly ask [Mr D] to explain who was behind the scheme and funding it beyond saying ‘the authorities’. At my hearing when I put my concerns that he had not asked [Mr D] for such details, he gave changeable explanations, first saying that it had not crossed his mind to ask as his focus became how best to get on with it after talking to his wife and pastor. Later, his explanation became that in fact he had decided not to ask as he feared losing his job if he asked any questions. However, neither explanation for not asking [Mr D] for greater details is persuasive in light of the high-risk and potentially very dangerous nature of the scheme that also involved travel around the country with large sums of cash, and that was well outside the purview of [Organisation 1] and his tasks at the time.
1. As well, at hearing when I queried how the information had been passed on to the government/security agencies, he stated he did not know. I acknowledge he has mental health issues and he has stated he finds it difficult to clarify details of his experiences, however, his explanation is not that he has forgotten. He stated the ex-combatants gave him information in [County 1] and he passed the information to [Mr D] and he had never asked [Mr D] where the information went from there.
2. In sum, in light of the nature of the claimed scheme that comprised obtaining secret information from dangerous ex-combatants – a scheme that was well outside the purview of [Organisation 1] and his tasks at the time – the applicant’s claimed scant knowledge of who exactly was behind the scheme and funding it and where and to whom the information was being sent, together with his changeable reasons for not asking [Mr D], raises credibility concerns with his claims and evidence.
3. His story of direct involvement in intelligence gathering At my hearing he speculated that the agency behind the scheme may have been one of a number of possible groups including the Liberian government, ECOWAS, or a security or regional security body. But it is also difficult to accept that such an agency sought to get a contact in a non-government, not-for-profit and non-political [organisation] to approach and gather information from important mercenary leaders around Liberia with large sums of cash, when such an agency would have gathered information through their own expert contacts. He responded that the [Organisation 1] conducted projects across the region, and there had been no trust between the government and ex-combatants as the authorities did not follow through with [promised] programs, but as I then pointed out, he was involved in a [funded] program in [County 1] that ostensibly shows the authorities had been following through with some [promised] programs. Regardless, as I next pointed out, even the country information he provided[8] that included a short quote from a UN Security Council report in 2013, shows the Liberian government had organised to influence and get information directly from mercenary generals at different times:
  From the evidence it seems that Isaac Chegbo was arrested twice. The first arrest was on the 13^th of April 2011 in Zwedru, Liberia, after which he was released 10 days later on the 23^rd of April, having been moved to Monrovia. Following his release on the first occasion he was in contact with the Liberian Government and provided them with intelligence for a period of time.
  Liberian mercenary generals Augustine Vleyee and Isaac Chegbo were used as sources by the Government of Liberia immediately following their release from prison, but then both mercenary generals again offered their services to fight for Ivorian pro-Gbagbo financiers operating from Ghana, at which point the Government of Liberia effectively lost contact with and influence over those individuals.[9]
  [8] He provided this to the Tribunal in 2015 (although dated ‘25 March 2015’ it was in fact first received by the Tribunal on 25 February 2015 by email from [Organisation 3])
  [9] He provided this to the Tribunal in 2015: Final report of the Panel of Experts on Liberia submitted pursuant to paragraph 5 (f) of Security Council
4. In sum, country information shows that in that period the Liberian government and Liberian National Security Agency had been active in directly liaising with, influencing, and gathering information from ex-combatants and mercenary leaders. In light of country information, I find unconvincing the applicant’s narrative that as an NGO worker in [County 1] he had been a significant agent in directly organising with mercenary leaders to get security information and then passing the information on so that it was pivotal in major security operations around the country.
  His claimed interactions with ex-combatants
5. In his narrative, after he agreed to participate, [Mr D] handed him [amount 1] cash and he set out to contact ex-combatants and make arrangements for information gathering. However, as discussed at hearing, he has given inconsistent accounts of these arrangements:[10]
  ·At the hearing on 12 February 2013 he stated he went to [County 3] first to see [Mr J] and then to see [Mr K] who put him on to [Mr L]. He stated he had paid them the first instalment of [amount 1] by October or November 2010.
  ·At the hearing on 24 June 2013 he stated he distributed the money to all three of them at a meeting in [County 1] in the early part of 2011.
  ·At the hearing on 2 March 2015 he stated the money was paid at a meeting [in] December 2010. He stated he particularly remembered the date because the meeting occurred at his office in [County 1] and he had to reschedule other things to allow it to take place.
  [10] These inconsistencies in his evidence identified by me in weighing up the evidence are not ‘information’ for the purposes of s.424A(1): High Court judgment in SZBYR v MIAC (2007) 235 ALR 609 at [18].
6. At my hearing he responded that he had only had [amount 1] and he had used some of the money to travel around, and he distributed the money both ways. He handed out money as he met each of them, he met [Mr J] and gave some money, and met [Mr K] and gave some money, and then met [Mr L] and gave some money, and then he got all three to come to [County 1] to get the rest of the money. But as I then put to him at hearing, he has variously said this happened by October/November 2010, or early 2011, or on 10 December 2010. He responded that he had been misunderstood. However, I find he has given changeable evidence about the disbursement of the money. I acknowledge he has mental health issues and he has stated he finds it difficult to clarify details of his experiences, and a person’s account of an occurrence may change in details when given at different times. Nonetheless, the disbursement of the money is a significant part of his narrative and would reasonably have been memorable, and indeed in March 2015 he offered a reason at that hearing why he particularly remembered the date of the [County 1] meeting. In sum, his changeable evidence at hearings about the disbursement of the money raises credibility concerns with his claims and evidence.
  The claimed outcomes of his interactions with ex-combatants
7. In the applicant’s narrative, on the basis of information provided by these ex-combatants and their contacts and that he had passed on to [Mr D]: in late March 2011 a [target] named [was] arrested; in April 2011 a cache of arms and ammunition was discovered in [County 1] and [another target] arrested; on 23 May 2011 a senior mercenary commander named [Mr E] and [a number] of his fighters were arrested; and in early June 2011 an arms cache was recovered in [county 2] along with [numerous] refugee accomplices.
8. But as I put to the applicant at hearing, even if reports show those events occurred, there is no indication that the events occurred because of information obtained by him and passed on by him to [Mr D], and indeed, one report shows [Mr E] had in fact been detained following a routine inspection of his vehicle at a checkpoint. Tribunal 2 had also raised this country information with him at hearing and put this information about [Mr E] to the applicant under s.424AA and this information was also, in any event, provided to the Tribunal by the applicant in 2015. At Tribunal 2’s hearing the applicant responded that his informants had provided information about the routes and timing of [Mr E]’s travel between Liberia and Ivory Coast, without which he would not have been arrested. At my hearing he responded that the reports would not have stated ‘based on information from me’ and the report about [Mr E] would have been deliberately vague to prevent reprisals. However, while I acknowledge such a report would not reveal an actual source if there had been one, this does not explain the clear reference in the report to [Mr E] being detained following a routine inspection of his vehicle at a checkpoint.
9. In sum, the occurrences and reports about these occurrences do not show any link between the occurrences and the applicant and indeed, a report about [Mr E]’s arrest shows it occurred because of a routine inspection at a checkpoint and no mention is made of 12 fighters being arrested. I do not accept the occurrences and reports about them support the applicant’s claims of his significant involvement in intelligence gathering that led to the occurrences.
  He travels to [Country 2] for training
10. In the applicant’s narrative, in June 2011 the ex-combatant leaders asked for the final payments of [amount 2], but then he told them he could not pay them at that time because he had work training in [Country 2]. The ex-combatants became insistent but he explained to them he was leaving his family behind in the home in [County 1] as surety and he would pay the mercenary leaders when he returned from the training course. He was next out of the country for a long period from [July] to [August] 2011 (and this travel is supported by the copy of his passport he provided). After he returned he discovered there was no money, got his wife and children out of [County 1] but left his father and other dependants there so that the ex-combatants were not alerted, and two days later he phoned the ex-combatants to tell them there was no more money, so “they went on a rampage and burned down the training centre, my home and kidnapped my father and other dependents”, and “since that day my family and I went into hiding”.[11]
  [11] Statement of 3 February 2012 in his application, para 22 to 26, 30
11. But as discussed at hearing, in his narrative his undercover work- gathering significant security information from very dangerous mercenaries and ex-combatants that had directly led to the serious outcomes of many people arrested and arms seized- had reached the critical stage of those mercenaries demanding large amounts of cash. In this context it is difficult to accept both that: when the dangerous mercenaries demanded payment and became insistent, he just told them to wait because he had a month of training out of the country; and merely to do such training he was willing to leave his entire family in potentially dangerous circumstances in [County 1] as surety. An explanation at hearing that he was not that concerned because it was not that much money is unconvincing because, as I pointed out to him, [amount 2] is a great deal of money and particularly at that time in Liberia.
  His return to Monrovia in Liberia and subsequent occurrences
12. His boss Mr [D] disappears In the applicant’s narrative, when he returned to Liberia [in] August 2011 he went to the [Organisation 1] Monrovia office to pick up the remaining cash but discovered his boss [Senior Official 2] [Mr D] had resigned without notice and departed/fled the country and [Mr D] was never seen again. He had a new boss, [Mr B], who told him [Mr D] had left no information about the plan and security activities and the [Organisation 1] would certainly not be involved in such a matter and took no responsibility at all. He then brought his wife and children to Monrovia and after a couple of days phoned the mercenaries who rampaged, he went to the police, and he then hid at an in-laws house for the next several months to December 2011.
13. To support the claim that the [County 1] building had been torched, the applicant provided to the Department a photo of a site with ruined foundations with a few Red Cross boxes stacked nearby. However, the photo does not identify the site in any way and I give it little weight.
14. The applicant also provided to the Department a letter dated 20 March 2012 signed by [Mr B][12] that ostensibly fully supports each element of the applicant’s narrative. The letter indicates in part that the applicant had been an employee prior to his departure from Liberia ‘due to assassination attempt on his life by some ex-combatants’; [Mr D] acted on his own by getting involved with national and regional security agencies; this endangered the applicant and family and [Organisation 1] workers and property; [Organisation 1] took no responsibility for [Mr D’s] actions as investigations show “he use his office clandestinely to espionage for securities apparatus from Liberia and the Sub region”; [Mr D’s]’ activities led to [Organisation 1] being banned from [County 1] and it was temporarily closing down its Liberia office to prevent further attacks.
  [12] A black and white copy provided to the Department and a colour copy to the Tribunal in August 2012
15. In response to concerns about the genuineness of the letter and that despite the author indicating in that letter that [Organisation 1] was closing its offices in Liberia it provided no phone number or email address on which he could be contacted, he made a submission on 26 October 2018 addressing these concerns. He stated [Mr B] had confirmed with him that:
  He admitted the letter head of [Organisation 1] has the telephone, fax and email at the bottom in fine print and when his secretary mistakenly didn’t scan the entire letter including the fine print at the bottom of the letter head, the fine prints did not came through when the letter was send to my lawyer. I had thought, the tribunal member would have use copy of my visa support letter for Australia written by my former boss (Mr [D]) on the same kind of [Organisation 1] letterhead and make a comparison before question my credibility…
16. The applicant provided contact phone numbers for his witnesses and organised for them to give evidence, and at hearing on 7 May 2019 when I phoned [Mr B] in [Country 1][13] his account of the occurrences in 2011 mirrored the applicant’s story. However, I have strong credibility concerns with the applicant’s narrative and evidence about [Mr D]’s secret involvement in a security operation, and the supporting evidence of [Mr B].
  [13] He refused to give evidence at hearing on 15 March 2019
17. The applicant’s Application for a [temporary] visa had been signed by him on 8 December 2011, and the [Organisation 1] had strongly supported his travel to Australia for a course. At hearing the applicant stated that everything in the [temporary] visa application was true. Indeed, the [temporary] visa application was accompanied by an Affidavit of Support by Mr [D], [Senior Official 2] of the [Organisation 1], sworn and subscribed before a Justice of the Peace in [County 4] [in] December 2011. This Affidavit is inconsistent with the applicant’s claim that [Mr D] had fled Liberia before [August] 2011 and so had no involvement with the [Organisation 1] from August 2011. When I discussed these points with the applicant at hearing[14] on 8 November 2018 he responded that he had merely signed the [temporary] visa application prepared by a [officer], and possibly the documents had been prepared in advance. But as I then pointed out the Affidavit shows it had actually been signed on 7 December 2011 and this is consistent with the [temporary] visa application and arrangements for travel also around that date, and I queried why [Mr D] would sign the Affidavit before a JP in July 2011 but date it in December 2011. He responded that he had not prepared the [visa] application and had not seen it and so it is not fair to ask him about it, and it is unfair if [Mr D] did something on the Affidavit that affected his credibility.
  [14] Including by a s424AA procedure
18. At hearing on 7 May 2019 the witness [Mr B] (the applicant organised for his witness to be phoned on that date) spoke of the [temporary] visa application arrangements being made earlier in July 2011, and the witness confirmed that [Mr D] had left Liberia before [August] 2011 and what [Mr D] had done was against the rules. When I pointed out that [Mr D] had in fact signed an Affidavit on 7 December 2011 the witness then explained how the witness had taken over from [Mr D] by August 2011 but had then taken leave in December 2011, and so a different [Mr D] had come from [Country 3] to take over. The witness added that there had been a slight difference in their names as the man from [Country 3] had the surname ‘[variant of D]’ and the former [Senior Official 2] was named ‘[D]’. Later in the hearing the applicant adopted and endorsed[15] this explanation and explained that up until now he had been unaware that [Mr B] had been on leave and replaced by an acting [Senior Official 2] from [Country 3] also named [Mr D(variant)], and that is why he failed to mention it at the hearing on 8 November 2018.
  [15] And so he has given the evidence to the Tribunal for the purposes of the review
19. The Tribunal in a s.424A letter of 28 May 2019 next invited the applicant to comment on or respond to the information (the Affidavit of Support by Mr [D], [Senior Official 2] of the [Organisation 1], sworn and subscribed before a Justice of the Peace in [County 4] on 7 December 2011, and attached to the Application for a [temporary] visa signed by the applicant on 8 December 2011). The applicant responded on 15 July 2019 and submitted that the Tribunal had not confronted [Mr B] on the phone about the explanation but had instead attacked the credibility of his witness without substantial evidence. However, I had in fact put to the witness that the Affidavit showed the same ‘[Mr D]’ as the man the applicant had said was his boss.
20. I have considered but do not accept any of these explanations. I find that the applicant’s [temporary] visa application had been supported by the [Organsation 1] and supported with genuine documents. One of those documents was an Affidavit sworn by the [Senior Official 2] Mr [D] on 7 December 2011 in [County 4], Monrovia. The applicant had always referred to “my boss Mr [D]”[16] and I reject the late claim that their names showed there had been two people (one named [D(variant)] and the other named [D]). The explanation that it had been signed and sworn before [August] 2011 but forward-dated to December 2011 is unconvincing and indeed the Affidavit clearly shows it had been signed and sworn before a JP on 7 December 2011.
  [16] His statement of 3 February 2012 in his application provided to the Department and his statement of 26 October 2018 provided to the Tribunal, and his evidence at hearing
21. At hearing the applicant described the office as a flat building with around 15 people, and he agreed he had known everyone in such a small office other than any volunteers. He stated that while he stayed at his in-laws home he had also gone into the office to talk with [Mr B] at times. In the context of a small office with staff known to the applicant, I find unconvincing his claim that he was unaware of who his boss was at the time his [temporary] visa application was being prepared (and so he had been unaware that another [Mr D] had replaced [Mr B] as acting [Senior Official 2]).
22. The Tribunal’s s.424A letter of 28 May 2019 put to him in part that:[17]
  Your Application for a [temporary] visa was signed by you on 8 December 2011. The application was accompanied by [Organisation 1] documents but also by your personal documents including: a marriage certificate; your children’s birth certificates; a certificate of registration for your personal [business] [dated][in] May 2011; your training certificates; your [bank] account page and [a bank] letter dated [December] 2011 sent by the bank to the AHC [City 1] ‘per the request of [the applicant]’; copy of your passport; a letter from [Organisation 2] dated 2 December 2011 addressed to you at the [Organisation 1] office in Monrovia.
  This information is relevant to the review because:
  The signed visa application and accompanying personal documents show that in December 2011 you had a personal involvement in the visa application, and had sourced and provided information to support the visa application and:
  •         This does not support your narrative and evidence and the evidence of [Mr B], that you had been in hiding for months and had been afraid to leave the place you were hiding in and had not worked in the Monrovia office.
  •         This does not support your narrative and evidence that you had no idea which director was supporting your visa application.
  •         This does not support your narrative and evidence that you had no idea your boss [Mr B] had been on leave in December 2011 and/or that he had been replaced by Mr [D] from [Country 3]- a different man to the [Mr D] who had fled Liberia around August 2011- as [Mr B] claimed at hearing on 7 May 2019.
  …
  [17] The full letter is not quoted here
1. The applicant explained in his response that: he had made some trips to the office to speak with [Mr B] but because of the danger and the police warning to stay off the streets, these visits had been concealed; he had not visited often; the office had held copies of his personal documents; and he had signed the [temporary] visa application “on one of my earlier visits at the [Organisation 1] office before contacting the police”. I acknowledge the office may have held copies of personal documents on file. However, the [temporary] visa application shows it had been personally signed by him on 8 December 2011, and included [a bank] letter also dated 8 December 2011 sent by the applicant’s bank to the AHC [City 1] ‘per the request of [the applicant]’, and his response did not convincingly explain why- in his claim- he signed the [temporary] visa application on an earlier trip to the office but forward-dated it 8 December 2011. As well, as I put to him at hearing, [Mr D] had sworn the Affidavit of support just the day before, and at hearing and it is difficult to accept the applicant did not enquire about who was supporting his [visa] application when the applicant signed the [application].
2. In sum, I find beyond coincidence and implausible the explanation that in the position of [Senior Official 2], [Mr D] was replaced by [Mr B] who while on leave was then replaced by another [Mr D] from [Country 3]. I find that in fact the same [Mr D] had continued to be an [Senior Official 2] in the Monrovia office of the [Organisation 1] in December 2011, and that he had not ceased working for the [Organisation1] and fled Liberia before [August] 2011 never to return, as claimed by the applicant and his witness.
3. Central to the applicant’s narrative are the actions of his boss [Mr D] and hurried departure from Liberia leaving the applicant exposed to the fury of unpaid mercenaries. The presence of the boss [Mr D] in the Monrovia office and his support of the applicant’s [temporary] visa application for Australia in December 2011 leads me to find that the applicant’s claims are fabricated and that he is not a credible witness. I find that [Mr B] is not a credible witness, and I do not accept his evidence in relation to the applicant’s claims.
4. [Mr F]’s letter and [Mr B]’s letter My foregoing finding that [Mr B] is not a credible witness is further supported after a consideration of his letter of 20 March 2012.[18] As suggested by the applicant in his statement dated 26 October 2018 given to the Tribunal, I compared [Mr B]’s letter with another official letter from the [Organisation 1]. Also in the applicant’s [temporary] visa application signed by him on 8 December 2011, was a letter dated 5 December 2011 signed by [Mr F], [Senior Official 3], and on official letterhead and sidebar paper of the [Organisation 1]. The letter stated in part that the applicant was in the employ of the [Organisation 1] and its partners as project planner. “He is currently serving as a [Occupation 2] at training sections in the Mano River Union post-War countries of Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea and Ivory Coast.” The training in Australia “is [a] partnership arrangement with [Organisation 1] to expand [certain] initiatives to the Mano River Union post-war countries.”
  [18] Provided by the applicant to the Department and Tribunal
5. At hearing on 27 May 2019 I discussed both of these letters with the applicant, including by a s424AA procedure, and I handed to the applicant a copy of the letter dated 5 December 2011 signed by [Mr F], [Senior Official 3]. In general discussion I also pointed out that the letter by [Mr B] was not faxed to the applicant’s lawyers as he claimed- as the representative’s letter of 29 May 2012 stated the applicant ‘has received documents from his country in Liberia and has requested that we pass on these documents…’. My credibility concerns were that [Mr B]’s letter had a significant typo in the letterhead that did not appear in [Mr F]’s letter, and the explanations for the telephone, fax and email address not appearing on [Mr B]’s letter were not convincing. At hearing I put to the applicant that these issues with [Mr B]’s letter may lead me to find the letter was fraudulent with false information and I may not accept [Mr B]’s evidence.
6. Then, the Tribunal’s subsequent s.424A letter of 28 May 2019[19] put to the applicant these key points about both [Mr F]’s letter and [Mr B]’s letter:
  ·The letter dated 20 March 2012 signed by [Mr B] while ostensibly using the same official [Organisation 1] letterhead and sidebar- differs from the official letterhead with an obvious typo in the sidebar where it states “HEEAD OFFICE”. Accordingly, it appears the letter signed by [Mr B] was not on official [Organisation 1] letterhead and sidebar paper.
  ·The official letter dated 5 December 2011 shows the telephone, fax and email address were in smaller font at page bottom but with the same resolution/darkness as the font above. Accordingly, it is difficult to accept the ‘secretary mistakenly didn’t scan the entire letter’ and/or that ‘the fine prints did not come through’ when faxed.
  ·The official letter dated 5 December 2011 clearly stated you were employed and ‘currently serving as a [occupation 2]’. Accordingly, the letter does not support your evidence that although you remained employed you had been in hiding for several months and you had not been currently serving.
  ·The official letter dated 5 December 2011 shows that the [Organisation 1] was seeking training for you so that the [Organisation 1] could expand its initiatives in the region. Accordingly, the letter does not support your narrative and evidence that you had ceased serving as a [occupation 2] and for several months had been hiding because you were in danger across the region from ex-combatants.
  ·The official letter dated 5 December 2011 made no mention of the [Organisation 1]’s activities being curtailed in the Mano River Union, but rather states the [Organisation 1] was seeking to expand across the region. Accordingly, the letter does not support your narrative and evidence that after August 2011 the [Organisation 1]’s activities had been obstructed and curtailed in the Mano River Union.
  [19] Not all of the letter is quoted here
7. The applicant explained in his response that (as summarised):
  ·He could not recollect which of the documents had been sent to him or to his lawyers, and his wrong claim that the lawyers sourced the letter should not raise credibility issues.
  ·He had made visits to the [Organisation 1] office but [Mr B] asked him to stay at home for safety, so he had not been sacked but placed on administrative leave and was not working at [County 1] or at the office.
  ·At hearing when giving evidence [Mr B] had not been asked about [Mr F]’s letter, or about the letterhead on his letter of 20 March 2012, and this amounts to jurisdictional error.
  ·The Tribunal has the capacity to use the Australian High Commission to Liberia to determine the existence of the [Organisation 1] or why it shut down its office in Liberia. But for the Tribunal to use a letter of support by the [Senior Official 3] raises serious questions about the merits of the decision.
8. I have considered the applicant’s explanations. But nonetheless, the applicant’s claim that his lawyers had independently sourced and obtained the letter from [Mr B] in Liberia is not accurate- the letter had been sourced and provided by the applicant. As well, when [Mr B] gave evidence on the phone on 7 May 2019 he was asked to give his account of events in Liberia at the time, and I asked questions and made queries about his evidence. I broadly took from [Mr B]’s evidence at hearing that he supported the applicant’s narrative of events in [County 1] in August 2011 and that the [Organisation 1] had gone to the police, but he was away on leave at the time that the applicant’s [temporary] visa application was being prepared and he had not been aware of the applicant being particularly threatened, and he gave scant details about leaving [Organisation 1]. The applicant adopted and endorsed [Mr B]’s evidence. I discussed with the applicant my credibility concerns with [Mr B]’s letter of 20 March 2012 at hearing on 8 November 2018 and again on 27 May 2019 when I included my new observation that the letterhead had a typo error that raised further concerns as to its genuineness. At hearing on 27 May 2019 I also discussed [Mr F]’s letter with the applicant, and I advised the applicant I did not propose to initiate further investigations in Liberia- through the AHC Ghana (that deals with matters in Liberia) or otherwise- and I did not propose to further cross-examine witnesses. Subsequently, after considering all of the material now before the Tribunal including the applicant’s written response on 15 July 2019, for reasons set out earlier above I have decided not to initiate further investigations in Liberia.
9. At hearing I have fully discussed with the applicant the documents and information he provided to support his claims, and my credibility concerns with the documents and information. At hearing I discussed with the applicant including with a s424AA procedure, [Mr F]’s letter and my observations about that letter, and [Mr B]’s letter and my observations about that letter. The applicant responded at hearing and additionally asked that the Tribunal put those concerns in a s424A letter so that he could further respond in writing. The Tribunal’s subsequent s.424A letter of 28 May 2019 set out the information, and why the information is relevant to the review, and the consequences if the information was relied on in making a decision. The applicant has had an opportunity to respond to the Tribunal’s credibility concerns both at hearing and in writing, and he has had a lengthy formal opportunity to 12 July 2019 to provide any other information he wishes (including information and documents that addresses these credibility concerns), as well as time up to my decision. Having carefully considered the applicant’s response of 15 July 2019 (that mirrored his response at hearing) I have decided not to schedule a further hearing to talk to [Mr B] about the letterhead typo in his letter and about [Mr F]’s letter. This is based on my consideration of the evidence before the Tribunal and in particular the Affidavit sworn by the [Senior Official 2] [Mr D] on 7 December 2011, and my adverse credibility findings concerning the applicant and [Mr B], and there is no realistic possibility of a different outcome were I to schedule a further hearing to talk to [Mr B]. The applicant has had a reasonable period in which to seek supporting documents, statements and information from Liberia and I reject his request that the Tribunal initiate further investigations through Australia’s overseas office.
10. I find that the letter dated 5 December 2011 signed by [Mr F], [Senior Official 3] of the [Organisation 1] does not support the applicant’s narrative and evidence, and indeed the letter ostensibly shows the applicant was not in hiding in 2011 but in fact he had been currently serving as a [occupation 2]. I find that information in the letter dated 20 March 2012 signed by [Mr B] is contrived and fraudulent and/or a false document, and I find this supports my foregoing finding that [Mr B] is not a credible witness. Based on the evidence before the Tribunal I find that [Mr D] remained the [Senior Official 2] throughout 2011 and this is why he signed a letter of support for the applicant’s [temporary] visa application, and I am not satisfied that [Mr B] in fact had any connection with the [Organisation 1]. I acknowledge the [Organisation 1] closed in 2012 but I do not accept this was because of the applicant’s activities in Liberia as a covert intelligence gatherer and the subsequent fallout- all of which I reject.
11. The house attack of [December] 2011 In the applicant’s narrative he decided to go to the media to get the attention of the public, and so he made contact with a correspondent of [Publication 2] named [Mr A]. They made an appointment to meet [in] December 2011, but the correspondent came to his sister-in-law’s house at [a named] road in [Suburb 1] the [evening] before [in] December 2011 and stayed overnight. [Later] that night the house was attacked with heavy gunfire and grenade explosion, resulting in three people in the household being killed. However, the applicant escaped through the back of the house without knowing the whereabouts or wellbeing of any family members in the house or of the correspondent. In the morning a few hours later he received a phone call from an unidentified man telling him that his family would be killed, and he would lose property and be killed anywhere in Liberia, if he did not pay them the cash promised. Right after that the correspondent phoned and convinced the applicant that his safety was paramount and so picked him up and took him directly to the [Country 2] Embassy in Monrovia where he stayed hiding for several days. The correspondent assured the applicant he would search for the applicant’s missing family. While at the Embassy, his Australian [temporary] visa was granted and so he flew to [Country 2] [in] December 2011 and then departed [Country 2] [in] January 2012 to travel to Australia.
12. However, as I next discuss, I also have credibility concerns with these elements of the applicant’s narrative and oral and documentary evidence, and with the evidence of his witnesses.
13. To support these claims the applicant provided a photo that showed a burnt white building. But as discussed at hearing, the photo merely shows a building damaged by fire and does not identify the site in any way and I give the photo little weight.
14. The applicant also provided to the Department (at interview on 4 May 2012) death certificates for the three relatives that he claimed had been killed during the attack [in] December 2011. The former representatives later provided to the Tribunal an email of [August] 2012 from the Liberian Ministry of Health & Social Welfare that attached the applicant’s birth certificate (filed and issued [in] May 2012) and stated the death certificates “has been verified after investigation and proven to be true and available”. The certificates show each person’s cause of death [in] December 2011 had been “[injuries] as a result of arsenal attack”; the place of deaths had been [Suburb 2]; and they had been filed [in] March 2012 and issued the same day. The first Tribunal discussed the fact that [Suburb 1] and [Suburb 2] were different locations in Monrovia, and a submission of 8 July 2013 submitted [Suburb 1] and [Suburb 2] are suburbs which appear to fall under the umbrella of [Suburb 1]. At hearing I queried when he found out that his relatives had been killed, and he responded the correspondent informed him after the correspondent had: investigated and got a police report; and confirmed the death certificates. When I asked about the people killed he stated that [named person 1] was his mother-in-law, [named person 2] was his sister-in-law’s husband/brother-in-law, and [named person 3] had been their male relative. However, as I pointed out at hearing, the certificate for [named person 3] indicates that person was a female and such an obvious error causes me credibility concerns with the certificate. He responded that they must have made an error when issuing the certificate and it was not his fault. But as I next discussed, country information shows that fraudulent documents were easily obtained in Liberia, and my comment encompassed reports[20] that show Liberia has had ongoing pervasive corruption, corrupt practices and graft. He responded that the second Tribunal had mistakenly given an incorrect date for his arrival in Australia and asked rhetorically whether that means the whole of that decision was not credible.
  [20] Freedom House report, Countries at the Crossroads 2012- Liberia, 20 September 2012, [ The Wall Street Journal, Some Ebola-Stricken African Families Pay Bribes for Fake Death Records, 12 October 2014, [>
  In sum, I accept that three deaths had been filed with the Liberian Ministry of Health & Social Welfare, and the date filed was three months after the date of the deaths, or six weeks after the applicant had lodged his application in Australia. However, the information in the certificates was provided to the Ministry and the clear error in one certificate about gender leads me to have concerns with the reliability of the information in the certificates, and in the light of country information about corruption in Liberia, I give the death certificates little weight.
15. A witness and former acquaintance Mr [C] gave evidence at hearing on 27 May 2019 that supported the applicant’s narrative about events in Liberia in 2011. The witness stated he got to know of the applicant’s problems through someone in Liberia and when he asked around he discovered the [Organisation 1] office had closed, and he only found out the applicant was in Australia when they reconnected through [social media] in 2018.
16. As well, the applicant provided to the Department a statement dated 20 March 2012 from [Mr A] (said to be a resident correspondent of [Publication 2]), and this statement mirrored the applicant’s narrative. The applicant stated at Tribunal 2’s hearing that he had arranged to meet the correspondent [in] December 2011, but that the correspondent had instead turned up at [a certain time] the night before and had been recording him telling his story in his living room while his family slept in the other rooms at the time the house was attacked. When asked why the correspondent who lived in the same city would arrive at the house late at night before their scheduled meeting the following day, the applicant stated that this was known as ‘African time’ and it was common for people to turn up to meetings at a different time from that scheduled.
17. At hearing I spoke to [Mr A] on the phone and he spoke of interviewing the applicant to [a certain time] when there had been an explosion and he fled, and the next day he phoned the applicant and took him to the [Country 2] Embassy. However, when I asked about the explosion and the aftermath, his answers became vague. When I asked what caused the explosion he stated he couldn’t have known as it happened outside, and when I queried whether as a correspondent he had later investigated, he merely discussed how he tried but it was difficult to find people. When I asked whether he reported the story in his [publication] he stated he had not. When I asked whether he searched for the applicant’s family he said he located addresses given to him by the applicant, but he never physically saw the relatives when he went to those addresses.
18. In sum, as discussed at hearing, I have credibility concerns with both the applicant’s narrative and evidence together with the evidence of [Mr A]- concerning the claimed house attack. First, as I put to the applicant at my hearing, it is odd that the correspondent came to the house the day before the scheduled interview and in so doing just happened to be there to witness the attack in Monrovia, and the applicant merely responded that it was up to the correspondent if he came early for an interview. The explanations for the correspondent, who was also from Monrovia, coming to a stranger’s house the night before a scheduled meeting and staying overnight- that he was on African time and it was up to him what he did- are not convincing. I consider that in his narrative, the presence of a correspondent in the in-laws’ house a lengthy [number of] months after the trouble began that happened to coincide with the first and only attack on the applicant in Monrovia is beyond coincidence and contrived.
·His changeable evidence at hearings about the disbursement of the [amount 1].
·The occurrences (arrests and arms seized) and reports about these occurrences do not show any link between the occurrences and the applicant and indeed, a report about [Mr E]’s arrest shows it occurred because of a routine inspection at a checkpoint.
·His claim that when the dangerous mercenaries demanded payment and became insistent, he just told them to wait because he had a month of training out of the country; and merely to do such training he was willing to leave his entire family in potentially dangerous circumstances in [County 1] as surety.
116.Having found that the applicant’s claims are fabricated and that he is not a credible witness, I also do not accept: the statement and evidence of his other witnesses named [Mr A] and [Mr C]; his claim about the house attack [in] December 2011; his claim about fleeing to the [Country 2] Embassy and then fleeing Liberia. As my foregoing discussion shows, I have considered the photo of a burnt white building but it merely shows a building damaged by fire and does not identify the site in any way and I give the photo no weight. As my foregoing discussion shows, these findings are supported by a number of my other credibility concerns:
·The presence of a correspondent in the in-laws’ house a lengthy [number of] months after the trouble began that happened to coincide with the first and only attack on the applicant in Monrovia is beyond coincidence and contrived.
·The story was not subsequently reported on by the correspondent].
·His inconsistent and tailored evidence about what he was doing at the time of the attack.
·His evidence that- other than asking a correspondent he had just met to search for his family and relatives- he made no attempts at all to search for his family and relatives caught in an attack on his in-laws’ house because his safety was paramount.
·He had ample opportunity to contact or seek to contact his family and relatives, particularly in Monrovia, both before he departed Liberia and while he was in [Country 2].
·As his passport shows, he travelled from Liberia to [City 2], [Country 2] on [in] December 2011 on his passport. It follows that after the Australian visa had been granted and the passport returned to Liberia, the applicant got the passport from the office at a time when he says he was in hiding in the [Country 2] Embassy. I reject, therefore, his narrative and evidence about hiding in the [Country 2] Embassy and travelling to [Country 2] on a laissez-passer issued by the [Country 2] Embassy.
·In light of his many family members and relatives in Monrovia and the number of ways he could have contacted or attempted to locate and contact any one of a number of people, including by phone, social media and emails, I do not accept his claim that he had been unable to contact anyone in Liberia at the time he arrived in Australia, and/or that he made no efforts to locate and contact them for a significant time, or that the location of his son and other dependants remains unknown.
·His evidence about a dependant [Mr M] living in his home at the time of the applicant’s departure from Liberia does not support his narrative of fearing the mercenaries would search and attack his home.
117.As my foregoing discussion shows, I have considered the death certificates for the three relatives that he claimed had been killed during the attack [in] December 2011. I accept that three deaths had been filed with the Liberian Ministry of Health & Social Welfare, albeit the date filed was [months] after the date of the deaths, or [weeks] after the applicant had lodged his application in Australia. However, the information in the certificates was provided to the Ministry and the clear error in one certificate about gender leads me to have concerns with the reliability of the information in the certificates. This concern, together with the country information about corruption in Liberia, and my foregoing findings that I reject the applicant’s narrative and find him to not be a witness of truth, lead me to give the death certificates no weight.
118.As my foregoing discussion shows, other elements of the applicant’s narrative and evidence support my finding that he is not a credible witness:
·Until a late hearing he made no mention of undertaking [occupation 4] work at the same time as his [Organisation 1] employment despite a number of opportunities both with the Department and Tribunal, and indeed in his application and Form 80 from November 2009 he only listed work for the [Organisation 1].
·His evidence that he had a very large sum in a personal bank account in December 2011 that he showed the AHC [City 1], and he entered Australia with this money in his account, and this sum was for a project he had been trying to implement, does not support his narrative that he had been hiding from August 2011 and in those several months had feared to be on the streets and could not work.
·Based on the information before the Tribunal, I am not satisfied as to the origins of the large sum he claims he came to Australia with.
Conclusion
119.Having considered the claims and evidence I find that the applicant is a Liberian national. He is a mature man who has extensively travelled, he is well educated and speaks fluent English, and he has work experience in Liberia and Australia. He stated at hearing that if he returned to Liberia he would return to Monrovia, and indeed that is where he has a house and a network of family members, relatives and friends. I consider, therefore, that he would return to live in Monrovia.
120.He does not have a current Liberian passport, but as discussed at hearing, he is a Liberian national with identity documents and he would be able to get a travel document that would enable him to travel to Liberia. He responded that he would not be able to get a Liberian biometric passport from the Consulate in Australia. However, as I pointed out, should he be returned to Liberia the Department would be able to organise his travel document.
121.In sum, I accept the applicant worked for [Organisation 1]), a non-government, not-for-profit and non-political organisation, as a [occupation 2]. But I reject in its entirety his narrative about his boss [Mr D] and the intelligence tasks the applicant claims to have undertaken in 2011. I do not accept the applicant was tasked to pay and gather security and intelligence information from ex-combatants, mercenaries or any other agents. I do not accept he disbursed money to mercenaries; subsequent arrests and arms seizures were due to his intelligence gathering; when he returned from [Country 2] he discovered [Mr D] had fled the country; non-payment led mercenaries to torch buildings and disappear his family and relatives; while being paid his salary he did not work but hid in Monrovia; he had scant involvement in the [temporary] visa application; in December 2011 his in-laws’ house was attacked with heavy gunfire and grenade explosion; he hid in the [Country 2] Embassy; he flew to [Country 2] without his passport. I find that [Mr D] continued to be [Senior Official 2] in Liberia and indeed, he supported the applicant’s trip to Australia, and I find that the applicant departed Liberia and entered [Country 2] in the usual way. I do not accept either that the applicant departed Liberia so as to escape feared harm (such as threats, intimidation, physical or other harm) from ex-combatants, mercenaries or any other agents there, or that he now fears to return to Liberia for the reasons he has given.
122.I accept the applicant worked for the [Organisation 1] as a [occupation 2], but other than the claims which I reject, the applicant does not claim that his work as a [occupation 2] or any other of his work in Liberia and the region caused him difficulties in Liberia or caused him to come to the adverse attention of any agents. I do not accept that on his return to Liberia any of his past work will cause him to face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.
123.The applicant stated at my hearing that following the Ebola crisis, Liberians distrust NGO workers, and there are a lot of ex-combatants in Monrovia who do not want to return to their villages. But as discussed at hearing, while NGO workers may have been mistrusted, the Ebola epidemic in Liberia is finished and has been for some time, and would not cause him harm on return to Liberia. My comments encompassed country information that showed the main epidemic ended in 2015.[24] As I pointed out, he would not return to his past work with the [Organisation 1] which is no longer in Liberia, and he would return to Monrovia and not a village in the countryside, where he has his home, and a family network that I do not accept has disappeared. I do not accept he faces harm from ex-combatants who may live in Monrovia. As well, I find he had lived and worked in [County 1] and more recently in Monrovia without difficulties, and he had not been in Liberia for years before the Ebola epidemic and was not there at the time of the epidemic. The applicant says he has skills and experience that would allow him to get work in Liberia and at that time he would be able to assess the safety of such prospective work in the region. In sum, based on the evidence before the Tribunal, I do not accept there is a real chance the applicant would face harm by the community or any other agent for any reason, including because of his past NGO work including for the [Organisation1], distant in time, or future work, now and in the reasonably foreseeable future.
[24] Wikipedia (used with caution), Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia, [ WHO, The Ebola outbreak in Liberia is over, 9 May 2015, [ have considered the country information provided by the applicant and the country information I discussed with him, and as discussed at hearing, country information[25] shows the security situation is much improved in Liberia since the civil war. The Freedom House 2018 country overview of Liberia states that Liberia has enjoyed more than a decade of peace and stability since the second civil war ended in 2003. During this time, the country has made considerable progress rebuilding government capacity, re-establishing the rule of law, and ensuring the political rights and civil liberties of citizens, and 2017 saw the first peaceful transfer of power between leaders since 1944. The report discusses how Liberia still faces serious issues with corruption, poor prison conditions and unequal access to justice, including the police force which is still seen to be corrupt, and lacking the financial support to be able to provide robust protection for Liberia’s people. The report nonetheless states the security environment in Liberia has improved dramatically in the years since warfare ended in 2003. People enjoy increasing freedom to move throughout the country, albeit some unofficial border checkpoints remain, at which border patrol agents sometimes attempt to extract bribes. My discussion about country conditions in Liberia also encompassed the UN report[26] that summarised the security situation in part:
[25] Freedom in the World 2018 Liberia profile, [ United Nations Security Council report, Final progress report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Liberia, 13 April 2018, [ The security situation remained stable. The Liberia National Police recorded 10,263 incidents during the period from 1 June 2017 to 30 March 2018, comprising primarily such crimes as theft, burglary, robbery and simple assault, as well as sporadic demonstrations and land disputes. The Liberia National Police effectively responded, without the use of force, to all incidents, including in remote counties, although police officers used personal assets to compensate for understaffing and inadequate resources.
125.When I consider all of the applicant’s personal circumstances and all of my findings about his narrative and evidence together, I do not accept that in the past the applicant faced adverse attention by the Liberian authorities, ex-combatants, mercenaries, community or any other agents. As discussed at hearing there is rule of law in Liberia and in particular the majority of the country’s police are in Monrovia. There continues to be corruption in government and these conditions in Liberia are faced by the whole population. The applicant has a home in Monrovia and a network of family, relatives and friends who I do not accept are missing or of unknown whereabouts, and I find he has family support available when he returns.
126.As well, as stated in my foregoing discussion, country information shows mental health services and medications are available in Liberia should he decide to seek such services. He stated that he would not mind going back to Liberia if it is safe to do so as he could use his work skills there. He also discussed the work he has performed in Australia, the job offers he has been unable to accept due to his migration status, and the work he envisages he will do in Australia in the future. He did not state that he envisages he would be prevented or hindered from getting work for any health or mental health reason if returned to Liberia. Indeed, he says he has extensive work skills and experience he can utilise in getting a range of work, and the evidence of his past work supports this. In light of the foregoing discussion and having particular regard to the applicant’s mental health needs here, the nature of the symptoms discussed in the report, and the applicant’s account of his psychological state- I am not satisfied the applicant will have psychiatric disorders that will attract the adverse attention of anyone in Liberia such that they will seek to harm him. I am not satisfied that his health and mental health problems will prevent or hinder him from getting work. I am not satisfied there is a real chance that his future condition will result in him experiencing serious harm such as a threat to his life or liberty; significant physical harassment; significant physical ill-treatment; significant economic hardship that threatens his capacity to subsist; or denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens his capacity to subsist. For the same reasons I am not satisfied his future condition will result in a real risk that he will suffer significant harm for the purposes of complementary protection.
127.Based on the material before the Tribunal I find there is not a real chance his past employment will cause him to face serious harm (or a real risk of significant harm for the purposes of complementary protection) if he returns. I do not accept there is a real chance or a real risk he will face serious harm or significant harm now and in the foreseeable future in Liberia for the reasons he has claimed, or for the reasons that I accept, or for any reasons.
Refugee criterion
128.In light of the above assessment, the Tribunal finds that in Liberia the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution now and in the reasonably foreseeable future, for the reasons he claims. The Tribunal finds that in Liberia the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution now and in the reasonably foreseeable future, for one or more of the Convention reasons either when looked at individually or cumulatively.
129.The Tribunal finds the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of Convention-related persecution, now and in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he returns to Liberia.
Complementary protection
130.I considered whether on the evidence before me, there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Liberia, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. For the reasons set out above, I have not accepted there to be a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm if he returns to Liberia, now or in the foreseeable future. Section 36(2)(aa) refers to a ‘real risk’ of an applicant suffering significant harm. The ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition: MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33. It follows that I do not accept there to be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm from anyone for the same reasons as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Liberia.
Overall Conclusion
131.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).
132.Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
133.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
134.The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
C. Packer
Member

ATTACHMENT A – RELEVANT LAW
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Refugee
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.
There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.
Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.
Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.
Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.
Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.
In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.
Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary protection
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

resolution 2079 (2012), submitted by letter dated 22 October 2013, actual quote at paragraph 35, [
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
- Immigration
- Administrative Law
- Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
- Judicial Review
- Procedural Fairness
- Natural Justice
- Statutory Construction

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

1619226 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 5988

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 26

[2019] AATA 5988

15 August 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Statutory Construction