1700704 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm upon return to Nigeria due to his conversion from Islam to Christianity and his past membership in a gang. The dispute centred on whether these claims established a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, thereby engaging Australia's protection obligations.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicant faced a real chance of suffering persecution involving serious harm from either Islamist groups, his family, former friends, or the broader Muslim community due to his conversion to Christianity. Secondly, the Tribunal had to assess whether the applicant faced a real chance of suffering persecution involving serious harm from gang members, either his former associates or rival gangs, due to his past involvement. The Tribunal also considered the alternative complementary protection criterion, assessing if there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Nigeria.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not face a real chance of suffering persecution involving serious harm from Islamist groups or his community due to his religious conversion. Similarly, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not face a real chance of suffering persecution involving serious harm from gangs due to his past membership. The Tribunal applied the established legal principles for assessing protection claims, including the "real chance" test for refugee status and the "real risk" test for complementary protection, noting that these tests impose the same standard. The Tribunal's findings were based on its assessment of the applicant's evidence and country information, leading it to conclude that the applicant's claims were not substantiated to the required legal threshold.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the relevant Act, nor did it find a real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the applicant's application for a protection visa was refused.