1621434 (Refugee)

The applicant, who sought a protection visa, claimed to fear harm upon return to Ghana due to his family's alleged desire to have him killed and sacrificed to the gods. This fear stemmed from his family's claim that he had been nominated as a successor chief and had undergone an initiation ceremony, making him the rightful heir to a stool. The applicant asserted that his family wanted him to renounce his religion or face death. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed the decision of the Department, which had not accepted that the applicant would face harm.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically membership of a particular social group, or for reasons of religion, such that he would be entitled to a protection visa. This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding his nomination as a successor chief, the alleged initiation, and the subsequent threats from his family. The Tribunal also needed to consider the applicant's religious beliefs and whether these, in conjunction with the chieftaincy dispute, placed him at risk of serious harm.

The Tribunal considered evidence provided to both the Department and itself, as well as independent country information. It noted inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence regarding his family background, birthplace, and religious upbringing. Specifically, the applicant provided conflicting accounts of his parents' and grandparents' origins and religious affiliations, and the circumstances of his own baptism. The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims about being nominated and initiated as a successor chief were not substantiated by credible evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant's religious beliefs as a Seventh-Day Adventist would place him at a real chance of suffering serious harm in Ghana, particularly in light of his prior military service and travel without incident.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a real chance of suffering serious harm if returned to Ghana. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.