1622488 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Ghana. The applicant claimed he feared persecution if returned to Ghana because he refused to be enstooled as a fetish priest, a role he alleged his family intended for him due to his position as the eldest son. He further claimed he was kidnapped, tortured, and detained by police following his refusal, and that he sustained injuries preventing his departure with his group to Australia. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed the decision of the Department, which had refused the visa application.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or whether there were substantial grounds for believing that his removal from Australia would result in a real risk of significant harm, thereby meeting the complementary protection criteria. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims, considering inconsistencies in his evidence, omissions in his initial application, and the delay in seeking protection. The Tribunal also had to consider independent country information regarding the selection criteria for chiefs and priests in Ghana and the consequences of refusing such traditional positions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the onus of proof required to establish his claim for protection. It noted that the mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or that it is well-founded, nor does it automatically prove a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, including his initial application and interview statements, and found significant inconsistencies, particularly regarding the alleged kidnapping, torture, and detention. The Tribunal also noted the omission of key incidents of harm from his written application and the provision of incorrect information to the Department. After considering relevant country information, the Tribunal concluded that there was no real chance of harm to the applicant upon his return to Ghana.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Department and therefore made no orders in favour of the applicant for the grant of a protection visa.