1620282 (Refugee)

1620282 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 6122 (7 January 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1620282
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Cameroon
MEMBER:Christopher Smolicz
DATE:7 January 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Statement made on 07 January 2020 at 11:25am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Cameroon – religion – Christian – father converted to Islam – forced marriage to Muslim man – particular social group – female victim of domestic violence – credibility concerns – contradictory information in visitor visa application – inconsistent evidence – document authenticity – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 2 November 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Cameroon, applied for the visa on 22 July 2015.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
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, he or she 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.
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 because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
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 the 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 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). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criteria or comes within Australia’s complementary protection obligations because she claims to fear harm from her partner and her father in Cameroon because she is a Christian woman who would not convert to Islam.
Background
The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal for the purpose of the review hearing.
The applicant is [age] years old. She was born in Yaoundé, Central Province, Cameroon. She speaks, reads and writes French and is a Catholic.
On 13 May 2015 the applicant applied for a visitor visa to travel to Australia. The visa was granted on 8 June 2015 and she arrived in Australia [in] June 2015.
She travelled to Australia on a passport issued by the Republic of Cameroon. The passport was issued [in] 2015 and remains valid [until] 2020.
The Tribunal has assessed the applicant’s claims for protection against Cameroon as the receiving country.
Summary of substantive claims
The applicant made the following claims for protection.
She is seeking protection in Australia because she fears her ‘husband’ and her father.
Her father is Muslim. When her parents married, her father had no religion but sometime after he became a Muslim.
She has younger sisters, one has passed away. Both sisters were Christian. They have no fixed place to live because her father wants to convert them to the Muslim faith. She has [number of] brothers. None of them live with her parents. She does not know their religion.
In 1999 she married [Mr A]. He was a Christian and they would attend church every Sunday. They celebrated Christmas and Easter. They had three children together:

[Child B] born [date], [Child C] born [date] and [Child D] born [date].
[Mr A] died suddenly in 2006. She went back to live with her parents. Her children went to her husband’s mother because she was Christian.
Her father did not want her to go to Church and she had to go in secret. Her father did not want her to see her children and she also had to see them in secret.
In 2009 her father forced her to ‘marry’ a rich Muslim man called [Mr E]. [Mr E] gave her father money. [Mr E] had four wives who lived in different houses. [Mr E] told her that she must convert to the Muslim faith. In 2010 the applicant and [Mr E] had a child, [Child F]. The applicant subsequently stated that they never married because she did not convert to the Muslim faith.
[Mr E] first hit her in 2010 after [Child F] was born. He saw her go to church and when she came back he broke her arm. She went to a traditional doctor for help.
After the incident her aunt organised a family meeting with [Mr E] and the applicant. [Mr E] agreed not to beat the applicant because of her religion. They went back to live together.
When [Child F] was six months old he took her to live with his mother because he did not want her to become a Christian.
[Mr E] would abuse the applicant physically and sexually. He was beating her in a way so that no one would notice. Her mother and sister were aware of how she was being treated but could do nothing.
In 2012 she decided to go to the police. She left her telephone numbers and they said they would contact [Mr E] to ask why he was abusing her. The police contacted [Mr E] and he paid them some money and she never heard from the police again. She went back to the police and they told her to go back home and sort it out with her ‘husband’. She went back home because she had nowhere else to go.
In 2014 the violence got worse. One morning she was ready to go to mass and [Mr E] grabbed her bible and threw it and beat her until she was unconscious and dragged her outside and left her in the street. The neighbour took her to hospital. She was in hospital for three months. She was unconscious for two months. Her mother was the only person who would visit her.
Her neighbours came to visit and told her that [Mr E] said that if she came home he would kill her.
She went to live with a school friend called [Ms G]. [Mr E] found out and threatened her friend and the applicant decided that she needed to leave Cameroon.
She decided to go to Australia. She went to the [Country 1] embassy and filled in a form. It was the [Country 1] embassy that was responsible for the forms to come to Australia.
She cannot remember what she said in the form. She got the visa and came to Australia. The only person that knew she was coming to Australia was [Ms G].
She left Cameroon [in] June 2015 on a plane to [Country 1] and another plane to Australia. She called her mother and told her she was in Australia.
She does not know anyone in Australia and [NGO 1] offered her assistance. She finds it difficult to sleep but is not taking any medicine.
She does not know if [Mr E] knows she is in Australia.
Her brothers cannot protect her. She is unable to rely on the authorities to protect her from her husband because their view was that she had to sort out her problems with her husband.
Consideration of claims and evidence
The applicant took part in a hearing on 13 November 2019 to give evidence and present arguments relating to issues arising in her case. The Tribunal also took evidence from [Ms H] who the applicant nominated as witness at the hearing. The applicant was represented by a registered migration agent and the hearing was conducted with the assistance of a female interpreter in the French and English languages. The Tribunal found the level of interpreting was of an adequate and competent level.
The Tribunal advised the applicant that the hearing was confidential and cleared the hearing room due to the sensitive nature of the claims.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that the delegate found aspects of her evidence inconsistent and that the credibility of her claims was an issue before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal also explained to the applicant that the hearing was informal and provided the applicant with breaks when required. The Tribunal also made it clear to the applicant that the hearing could be adjourned and it could be rescheduled for another day if required. The applicant advised the Tribunal that she wanted to proceed with the hearing.
Credibility
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s claims and evidence at the hearing and finds that there are a number of significant contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions. The Tribunal finds that when these issues were put to the applicant for comment the applicant provided different explanations and changed her evidence.
The Tribunal has considered all the evidence and finds that the applicant is not a credible witness. The Tribunal does not accept her father converted to Islam and forced the applicant into a relationship with a Muslim man ([Mr E]). The Tribunal does not accept the applicant was a victim of domestic violence because she refused to convert to Islam. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant was threatened by her father because she did not convert to Islam. In making these findings the Tribunal has considered the overall consistency and coherence of the applicant’s account.
In assessing the credibility of the applicant’s evidence the Tribunal is acutely aware that a person may be anxious or nervous due to the environment of a hearing and the significance of the outcome. The applicant was represented by her agent at the hearing and the Tribunal finds that the applicant was able to be meaningfully engaged in the hearing process and articulate her claims.
The Tribunal has also had regard to the evidence of [Ms H] who was a witness at the hearing. The Tribunal found [Ms H]’s evidence of limited assistance.
[Ms H] said that she was a qualified interpreter in the English and French languages. She first met the applicant shortly after the applicant arrived in Australia. The circumstances of the meeting were unusual. [Ms H] was working as a French interpreter at the time the applicant attended a counselling session with [NGO 1] in 2015. [Ms H] said that she observed during the session that the applicant had no means, was in need of clothing and was cold. She felt sympathy for the applicant and went out of her way to meet the applicant and provide her with clothing in her personal capacity. [Ms H] said that a friendship developed and she has maintained contact with the applicant since this time. [Ms H] said she has also provided the applicant with some financial support so that she could send money back to her family in Cameroon. She has not spoken to the applicant’s children or mother in Cameroon and did not have firsthand knowledge of the difficulties the applicant faced in Cameroon. [Ms H] claims that, in her opinion when she first met the applicant, she displayed traits of someone who was suffering post-traumatic stress.
The Tribunal was not provided with any psychological or psychiatric reports regarding the applicant’s mental health.
In assessing the claims the Tribunal is also aware that false documents can readily be obtained in Cameroon.[1]
Contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions in the applicant’s evidence
[1] >
The applicant took part in a protection interview on 19 August 2016 and according to the decision record, the delegate referred the applicant to the inconsistent evidence she provided in her statement of claim and her visitor visa application.
According the delegate’s decision the applicant declared in her visitor visa application that she was married to [Mr I]. She provided a copy of their marriage certificate. The marriage certificate contains a photograph of the applicant and her husband together. [Mr I]’s visitor visa application listed the applicant as his wife and provided a copy of the same marriage certificate with his visitor visa application to Australia.
Both the applicant and [Mr I] also provided the following documents in support of their visitor visa applications; utility bills showing that they live together in Yaoundé and bank statements. In their visitor visa applications the applicant and [Mr I] said that they have two children named [Child J] and [Child K]. The applicant and [Mr I] both provided copies of birth certificates for the children with their applications. The applicant further declared in her visitor visa application that she was employed at [Company 1] and provided evidence of payslips and a letter from her employer granting her leave to travel to Australia. The applicant also provided a police clearance certificate with her photograph attached and her birth certificate, passport and vaccination history. The applicant also provided laboratory results dated [in] May 2015 confirming that she had undertaken various blood tests and did not have tuberculosis, HIV infection or other diseases.
The Tribunal finds that the detailed evidence provided by the applicant in support of her visitor visa application is significantly inconsistent with her claims for protection.
Specifically, the applicant did not declare in her protection visa application that she was married to [Mr I] or that they have two children together or that she worked as a ‘[Occupation 1]’ for a private company. The visitor visa application makes no reference to her three children [Child B] born [date], [Child C] born [date] and [Child D] born [date].
The Tribunal notes that the delegate requested that the applicant comment on the inconsistencies at the interview. In response, the applicant stated that she did not know a man can called [Mr I] and said she ‘did not know what they did at the embassy, that she just went and filled out a form and that as she has never travelled she does not know what happened when they granted the visa.’
The Tribunal finds the applicant’s initial explanation implausible. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant would be able to apply for a visa to travel to Australia and have no knowledge of photographs of herself and [Mr I] as well as certificates and personal documents provided in support of the application.
On 20 September 2016 the applicant provided a second statutory declaration in response to the inconsistent information that was put to her for comment at the interview. The Tribunal notes that the applicant changed her evidence and provided a different explanation from that which she provided during her protection interview.
The applicant declared that she does know a man called [Mr I]. She claims she first met him in March or April 2015. At the time she had separated from her husband and was hiding at a friend’s house. She had to attend the hospital for a check-up. When she left the hospital she saw [Mr I] who was sitting on a park bench outside the hospital. She had known [Mr I] for about three years because he was one of her regular customers. [Mr I] saw the applicant and asked her what was wrong and why she was so upset. The applicant explained to [Mr I] the problems she was having with her husband; that she was in danger and needed to run away. [Mr I] told her that he could help organise a visa for her to come to Australia. It would cost 4 million Cameroon (CFA) francs (about $9,800 AUD). He would organise everything and she just needed to trust him. She claims to have been saving money for 10 years and had the money. She gave [Mr I] the money along with a copy of her passport [issued [in] 2015] and ID card.
She did not hear much from him. In May 2015 [Mr I] called to arrange a meeting in the city. She signed some papers. She claims she did not know what she was signing. Some of the papers were white and some were blue. He said he would call her when the visa was ready. In June 2015 [Mr I] called her and told her the visa was ready and gave her the visa. He did not explain what the visa was or what it would let her do.
The applicant claims she did not know the contents of the application. She does not know the names of the children [Child K] or [Child J]. She does not understand why he claimed they were married and had children together. She also does not understand how he produced the marriage certificate and birth certificates. She claims that he may have forged the documents. She claims never to have been married to [Mr I] and the only children she had were declared in her application.
The reason she did not tell the Department or her migration agent about this is because [Mr I] had told her not to say anything to anyone. He told her that if she said that someone else completed the application for a visitor visa she would be sent back to Cameroon.
Prior to the Tribunal hearing the applicant provided a third statutory declaration dated 5 November 2019 in which she added further details to her claims. She declared that when she was beaten by [Mr E] in 2014 he dragged her out into the street, leaving her unconscious with her bible, handbag, her birth certificate and her mobile phone.
She claims that in this way if anyone who found her they would think that a stranger had attacked her and would not suspect [Mr E]. At the hearing she maintained that [Mr E] left the documents on her possession to make it look like she was attacked by bandits.
She claims passers-by found her and put her in a taxi and took her to hospital where she was unconscious for two months and she remained in hospital from August to November 2014. At the hearing she provided a document titled ‘Medical history’ which she claims documents her stay in hospital. She claims the people at the hospital found her phone and called her mother who would visit her during the stay.

She claims that one month after being discharged from hospital she had to return for a check-up and ran into [Mr I] who was a customer of hers in the past and an opportunity came up to travel to Australia on a tourist visa and she paid the person an amount that is equivalent to around $8000 AUD, he advised her not to ask any questions, just pay him and he guaranteed she would be granted a tourist visa. She claims the person showed her a bundle of documents which she signed.
The Tribunal notes that according to the ‘Medical history’ she was discharged from hospital on 20 November 2014 which would suggest that she met [Mr I] in late December 2014. The Tribunal finds this evidence is inconsistent with the applicant’s earlier declaration where she claims to have met [Mr I] in March or April 2015. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant’s passport was issued [in] 2015. The Tribunal also finds it an odd coincidence that the applicant would have applied for a passport before she met [Mr I] in circumstances where she claims to have had no involvement in the visitor visa application.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant confirmed at the hearing that she spoke limited English before she arrived in Australia. The Tribunal questioned the applicant as to why she travelled to Australia and not a French-speaking country. The applicant said that she had heard about Australia during the 2002 World Cup. She claims she did not decide where she would go and [Mr I] told her he would arrange for her to go far away. The Tribunal finds it unusual that the applicant, who claims to have been escaping a violent relationship, would agree to travel to Australia, an English speaking country, where she has no relatives or family support and would leave her children behind in Cameroon.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how she was able to facilitate the travel to Australia. The applicant said she gave [Mr I] her passport and birth certificate and he did everything. She got the passport and birth certificate from her mother. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence inconsistent with her declaration where she stated that [Mr E] left her unconscious in the street with her handbag and birth certificate.
The Tribunal put the inconsistencies to the applicant at the hearing. The applicant said it must have been an interpreting error and that she kept a copy of her national identity card in her handbag, not her birth certificate. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s explanation and has given it little weight. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s declaration dated 5 November 2019 and finds it was prepared by her current migration agent and with the assistance of an accredited French interpreter ([Ms H]) who also gave evidence at the hearing in support of the applicant’s claims.
The Tribunal also finds it difficult to accept that she would be in a financial position to pay four million CFA francs (about $9,800 AUD) to [Mr I] given her claim that she was left destitute by [Mr E] and spent three months in hospital and was employed as a vendor at the local markets. In response the applicant said that she has been saving since she was 12 years old. She was good at predicting what goods were in demand at the market and was good at making money. The Tribunal found the applicant’s explanation lacking in credibility and has given it little weight.
The Tribunal also finds it difficult to accept that [Mr E] would drag the applicant into the street unconscious and leave the applicant’s handbag, mobile phone and personal identification documents in the applicant’s possession if he wanted to avoid being associated with the assault.
The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence about her chance meeting with [Mr I] on a park bench and the circumstances in which she was able to obtain a visitor visa to travel to Australia implausible.
As detailed above the applicant’s visitor visa application was accompanied by personal evidence which required the applicant’s knowledge, input and cooperation and is inconsistent with the applicant’s claims that she had no knowledge of the visa or the evidence provided in support of the application. For example, the Tribunal finds that attached to the marriage certificate provided in support of her visitor visa was a photograph of the applicant and her husband ([Mr I]) together. This evidence clearly shows that the applicant was involved in the application process. The visa application also included the applicant’s banking records and payslips for November and December 2014 and overlap with the period she claims to have been in hospital. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant provided laboratory results which indicate that she was medically assessed in May 2015 and her blood tested to ensure she could comply with the visa conditions to travel to Australia. The Tribunal has considered this evidence and finds the applicant’s claims that she had nothing to do with the visa application and simply gave her birth certificate and passport to [Mr I] implausible.
The Tribunal also questioned the applicant about the provenance of the document titled ‘Medical history’ which was provided at the hearing. The Tribunal told the applicant it was concerned about the authenticity of the document and observed that it was not provided with her original application. The applicant said she was asked about medical proof at the protection interview and she asked her mother to obtain the report. She claims it was sent by email and she did not have the original and her mother obtained assistance in obtaining the document in Cameroon.
The Tribunal finds it surprising the applicant would be able to produce a document at the hearing from a hospital in Cameroon dating back to 2014. The Tribunal also finds that the content of the Medical history is inconsistent with the applicant’s claim that she was unconscious for two months as a consequence of injuries inflicted by [Mr E]. For example according to the document she was admitted to hospital [in] August 2014 in a ‘pre-comatose state’ which continued for three days. The report claims her condition was stable by 25 August 2014 and that she was undertaking physiotherapy by 7 September 2014. The Tribunal finds the medical history is inconsistent with the applicant’s claim she was unconscious for two months while she was in hospital.
In response the applicant said it may be a translating error. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s explanation and finds that the discrepancies in the medical report are significant and do not appear to be attributable to a translating error. The Tribunal does not accept the medical report is a genuine document.
The Tribunal also found the applicant’s evidence about the circumstances in which her father converted to Islam vague and lacking in detail. The applicant claims she was 17 years old at the time and said she did not know anything about it. She claims that all she observed was that her younger brothers left the family home and her mother was threatened. The Tribunal had to prompt the applicant and asked if she could provide further detail. The applicant said she saw her father praying at five in the morning and going to the mosque.
The Tribunal also noted that according to the evidence she provided in support of her protection visa her father was referred to by the following different names ‘[Alias 1]’, ‘[Alias 2]’ and ‘[Alias 3]’. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant’s national identity card, marriage certificate (with [Mr I]) and her police clearance certificate which were provided in support of her visitor visa detail her father’s name as ‘[Alias 3]’.
The applicant said that ‘[Alias 1]’ may have been an interpreting error and [Alias 3] was her father’s name at birth. When her father converted to Islam he changed his name to ‘[Alias 2]’. The Tribunal observed that it seemed unusual for her father to choose a French name if he had converted to Islam. The applicant said he lived in a Francophone area. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence but has given it little weight.
The Tribunal also finds the applicant was only able to provide limited evidence about her relationship with [Mr A] who she claims to have married in 1999. The applicant did not provide any photographs, marriage certificate or death certificate. When asked what [Mr A] did for a living the applicant’s evidence was vague and lacking in detail and she was only able to tell the Tribunal that he was a handyman and could not be more specific. The Tribunal was provided with the birth certificates of the three children the applicant claims to have had with [Mr A]. The certificates describe [Mr A]’s occupation as [Occupation 2] which also seems inconsistent with the applicant’s evidence.
The Tribunal also observed that the applicant provided no evidence in her claim or declaration about what caused [Mr A]’s sudden death in 2006. In response, the applicant said that [Mr A] died from typhoid fever. She claims he was being treated only with local ‘indigenous medicines’ and he was able to live with his condition which fluctuated. She claims he died the hospital door of and was buried with no record. She claims that if a person is not employed as a public servant it is difficult to obtain a death certificate in Cameroon. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence about her marriage to [Mr A] and his sudden death to be vague and lacking in credibility.
The Tribunal also questioned the applicant about the inconsistent evidence she provided about the three children she claims to have had with [Mr A]. For example, the Tribunal notes that in her statutory declaration lodged with her protection visa application she declared that she and [Mr A] had the following three children together: ‘[Child B] born [date], [Child C] born [date] and [Child D] born [date]’. In her statutory declaration dated 5 November 2019 the applicant declared that she had the following three children with [Mr A]: [Child L] born [Year 1], [Child M] born [Year 2] and [Child N] born [Year 3]. The Tribunal finds it unusual that the applicant would use different names wen referring to her children. The Tribunal questioned the applicant about the discrepancies in the children’s names. The applicant referred the Tribunal to the children’s birth certificates and said that the children’s full names are [Child L] born in [Year 1], [Child M] born [Year 2] and [Child N] born [Year 3] as detailed in the birth certificates.
The Tribunal has examined the original birth certificates and finds that all three were written in the same blue biro in the same handwriting with a left hand slant. The Tribunal notes that at the bottom of each of the certificates is the the same signature in black biro. The Tribunal finds it highly unusual that birth certificates which purport to be issued in [Year 1], [Year 2], and [Year 3] would be in the same handwriting and biro. The Tribunal raised these concerns with the applicant at the hearing.
In post hearing submissions it was submitted by the applicant’s agent that the applicant recently sent her children money to obtain the certificates and they were all issued at the same time with the same handwriting. No further evidence was provided to support this evidence.
The Tribunal has considered the original birth certificates and notes that they are individually number and date marked in red biro ‘[Certificate No. 1]’, ‘[Certificate No. 2]’ and ‘[Certificate No. 3]’. The Tribunal has considered this evidence and finds that the notations would suggest that the certificates were produced contemporaneously and were not produced recently as submitted by the agent. The Tribunal has had regard to the irregularities in the documents and does not accept the birth certificates are genuine.
The Tribunal is also concerned that the applicant has not been able to provide a birth certificate or any photos or evidence to confirm the existence of a child called [Child F] which she claims was born in [Year 4] and is now living with [Mr E]’s family.
The applicant did however provide the Tribunal at the hearing with photographs of three children she claims were the children she had with [Mr A]. The applicant is not depicted in any of the photos. In one photo the children are depicted with an elderly woman who the applicant identified as her mother. The Tribunal observed that the children appeared to be in similar clothing. The applicant confirmed that the children attended a Catholic school and she was funding their education from Australia. She claims that she sent them to a Catholic school because it had better discipline. The applicant maintained that her mother ‘secretly’ visited the children at her in-laws house when the photos were taken. The Tribunal told the applicant it found it unusual that someone would take a photo of the three children and their grandmother if her visit was in secret. In post hearing submissions the applicant’s agent submitted that the children are being looked after by ‘another lady’. She requested that this lady give evidence to the Tribunal however she was unwilling to due to her fear of being persecuted. No explanation was provided as to who this person was or why they feared persecution. The evidence is also inconsistent with the applicant’s evidence that the children were living with her in-laws.
The Tribunal was also advised that the applicant’s mother is extremely scared of any consequences that would arise from her giving any type of witness statement; hence the applicant has been unable to obtain a witness statement from Cameroon. The Tribunal finds this statement inconsistent with the applicant’s evidence that her mother was able to assist her obtain the ‘Medical history’ in Cameroon. No further explanation was provided as to why the applicant’s mother fears providing a statement in support of her daughter’s protection visa application in Australia.
The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence that she had three children with [Mr A] vague, incomplete and concerning.
In assessing the applicant’s claims the Tribunal is conscious that the terms domestic violence or family violence involve a pattern of abusive behavior and can occur in any relationship, committed by one party to gain or maintain control over another. Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic or psychological actions (or threats of actions) that impact another person.
The Tribunal has considered the totality of the applicant’s claims and finds the contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions in her evidence significant and concerning. The Tribunal’s concerns about the inconsistent evidence provided in her visitor visa application are not peripheral or minor but relate to the issues which are central to her claims. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant was a victim of domestic violence, and was subjected to physical, emotional, psychosocial and sexual abuse because her father forced her into a relationship with a Muslim man and she refused to convert to Islam.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim that the abuse commenced in 2010 and that her arm was broken and she was subjected to threats, intimidation and sexual assault because she would not convert to Islam. The Tribunal does not accept the claim that the applicant reported [Mr E] to the police in 2012 but they were of no assistance. The Tribunal does not accept that in 2014 she was going to attend a church service and was beaten unconscious and dragged into the street and spent three months in hospital.
The Tribunal put its concerns to the applicant at the hearing. The applicant said that [Mr I] told her that if she told anyone that he had helped with her visitor visa application she would be sent back to Cameroon. The Tribunal has given this explanation little weight. The Tribunal notes that [Mr I] has no involvement with her protection visa application which is confidential and was lodged in Australia. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant was assisted by a registered migration agent when she applied for her protection visa in Australia.
In post hearing submissions the applicant’s agent submitted that the applicant lives in fear of persecution ‘mostly for religious reasons’. It was submitted the reason the applicant suffered domestic violence at the hands of [Mr E] and her father was solely due to the fact that she was a Christian and refused to convert to the Muslim faith. It was further submitted the applicant’s ‘husband’ was part of the ‘Ethnical Tribe called [Tribe 1]’ and he was from the Northern Province’ which is religiously very extreme.’ It was submitted that the applicant’s ‘existence alone is a constant insult to [Mr E], in the society which runs on male pride, it was imperative to him that he rid himself of her since she was shaming him in refusing to convert to Islam.’
The Tribunal has had regard to country information which confirms that religious conflict and intolerance between Christians and Muslims in Cameroon is not endemic. In particular country information confirms that in 2010 there were no reports of societal abuses or discrimination based on religious affiliation, belief or practice, and Christians and Muslims organised ecumenical ceremonies to pray and promote tolerance and peace.[2]
[2] US Department of State 2010, International Religious Freedom Report – Cameroon, November 17, Section III
In 2011, a meeting between the Council of Imams and Religious Dignitaries of Cameroon (CIDMC) and the National Episcopal Conference of Cameroon (CENC) resulted in consensus that inter-religious dialogue should be strengthened in the wake of a land dispute between the Catholic Church and a local Muslim community, which led to some Islamic fundamentalists distributing anti-Christian leaflets.[3] At a 2009 open-air mass in Yaoundé, Pope Benedict said cooperation between Muslims and Christians in Cameroon ‘should serve as a beacon of peaceful coexistence for other African nations’.[4] Pope Benedict praised the peaceful co-existence of Muslims and Christians, despite the prevalence of violence between the two religions in neighbouring Nigeria.[5]
[3] ‘Cameroonian Christians, Muslims give their support to inter-religious dialogue’ 2011, Afrique Avenir website, source: ANA, 28 January
[4] ‘Pope Praises Muslim-Christian Relations in Cameroon’ 2009, Voice of America News,
[5] ‘Pope Praises Muslim-Christian Relations in Cameroon’ 2009, Voice of America News, 19 March
In conclusion the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively and finds that there are significant contradictions, inconsistencies and omissions in the applicant’s evidence. The Tribunal finds that when the inconsistences were put to the applicant she provided different explanations during the protection interview, in her statutory declarations and at hearing. In particular the Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s explanation about how she met a man called [Mr I] and the circumstances in which she was able to obtain the visitor visa and travel to Australia and finds it implausible. The Tribunal finds the inconsistencies significant and as a consequence the Tribunal has not accepted any of the applicant’s claims.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was forced to enter a relationship with a Muslim male by her father. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant fears her father because she disobeyed his demands and refused to convert to Islam. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant was subjected to domestic violence in Cameroon because she refused to convert to Islam and continued to practice her Catholic faith.
Looking to the reasonably foreseeable future the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm if she returns to Cameroon because she is a female victim of domestic violence, female victim of religious based violence or because she is a Christian who refused to obey [Mr E] and her father and convert to Islam.

The Tribunal does however accept that the applicant is from the Christian faith. Next, the Tribunal has considered if there is a real chance the applicant would face persecution if she returned to Cameroon in the reasonably foreseeable future because of her religion.

100. The Tribunal questioned the applicant about how she practices her religion in Australia. The applicant said she attended church in Australia. When asked to be more specific the applicant said it was at the Salvation Army in [Suburb 1]. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she was not taking part in Catholic Church services in Australia. The applicant said she has attended Catholic and Protestant Churches in Australia and it’s the same God. She started to go to the [Suburb 1] worship services because it was closer to her home. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence surprising in light of her evidence that she was a devout Catholic and only attended a Catholic Church in Cameroon.
101. Country information confirms that Cameroon has a population of 25.6 million and that 69.2 percent of the population are Christian and 20.9 of the population are Muslim. Of the Christians about 55.5 percent are Roman Catholics. The two Anglophone regions are largely Protestant, and the five southern Francophone regions are mostly Catholic. The Fulani (Peuhl) ethnic group is mostly Muslim and lives primarily in the northern Francophone regions. It was also reported that in 2018 Muslim and Christian leaders initiated interfaith activities aimed at promoting interreligious dialogue and peaceful coexistence of different faiths [6]
[6] There have been recent reported deaths of religious leaders by security forces battling armed Anglophone separatists in the Northwest and Southwest Regions. On several occasions, Christians in these two regions complained that security forces interrupted church services and prevented them from accessing places of worship. Reports also confirm that Boko Haram continued to carry out violent attacks, including suicide bombings against civilians, government officials, and military forces, and harassed and intimidated populations in the far north region. Attacks on civilians included invasions of mosques, church burnings, killings and kidnappings of Muslims and Christians, and theft and destruction of property, including arson. The insurgents attacked places of worship and private homes. The government initiated communication campaigns aimed at curbing radical extremism and reintegrating former Boko Haram fighters. [7]
[7] The Tribunal has had regard to country information and finds that Catholics in Cameroon are able to freely practice their religion without fear of persecution. The constitution of Cameroon establishes the state as secular, prohibits religious harassment, and provides for freedom of religion and worship. The Catholic Church represents about a third of the Cameroon population. The Catholic Church is present in all 10 of Cameroon’s regions and is stated to be one of the country’s ‘strongest institutions’.[8] It is reported that the church ‘operates a dense network of schools and hospitals. Cameroonians take its views seriously.’[9]
[8] The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s profile as a Francophone Christian from Yaoundé. She is not from the Northwest and Southwest Regions of Cameroon which are experiencing conflict due to the Anglophone separatist movement. The Tribunal finds that the applicant, as a Christian is part of the majority of the population of Cameroon and is free to practice her religion if she returns to Cameroon without fear of persecution.
105. Looking to the reasonably foreseeable future, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm if she returns to Cameroon because of her Catholic faith. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s fear of persecution because of her religion is not well-founded.
106. 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 s.36(2)(a).
107. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s claims, having regard to the complementary protection criteria.
108. The types of harm that fall under the complementary protection provisions are exhaustively defined by s.36(2A), specifically that the person will be either arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out, the person will be subjected to torture, the person will suffer cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or the person will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
109. As detailed above the Tribunal did not find the applicant to be a credible witness. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was forced to enter a relationship with a Muslim male by her father. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant fears her father because she disobeyed his demands and refused to convert to Islam. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant was subjected to domestic violence in Cameroon because she refused to convert to Islam and continued to practice her Catholic faith. The Tribunal has had regard to country information detailed above and finds the applicant will be able to continue to practice her Catholic faith if she returns to Cameroon in the reasonably foreseeable future.
110. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is also not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Cameroon, there is a real risk that she will suffer serious harm, including arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, the death penalty, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or degrading treatment or punishment.
111. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
112. 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
113. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Christopher Smolicz
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)    severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)   pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)    that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)   arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)    for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)   for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)    for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)   for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)    for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…

5H   Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)    in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)   in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note: For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…

5J    Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)    the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)   there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)    the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)    conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)   conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)    without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)    that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)   the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)    the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)    a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)   significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)    significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)   significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)    denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K   Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)    disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L   Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)    a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)   the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)    any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b)   the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)    the person can access the protection; and
(b)   the protection is durable; and
(c)    in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…

36    Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)    a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) 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 non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)   a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)    the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)   the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)    the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)    the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)    it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)   the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)    the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2020] AATA 6122

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction