1700739 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Zimbabwe. The applicant claimed he feared persecution due to his bisexuality, his support for the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), and his prior residence in a Western country. The delegate had previously refused to grant the visa, and the applicant sought review of that decision.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm to the applicant in Zimbabwe, based on his sexuality, political opinion, or his return from a Western country. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims and considering whether any claimed risk was personal to him or faced by the general population. The Tribunal also had to consider the provisions of section 36(2B) of the Act, which outline circumstances where a real risk of significant harm is not taken to exist, including the possibility of internal relocation, the availability of protection from the authorities, or if the risk is faced by the population generally.

The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of a reasonable approach to credibility assessments, referencing case law and UNHCR guidelines. However, it emphasised that a claim of fear does not automatically establish its genuineness or that it is well-founded. The applicant must satisfy the Tribunal of all statutory elements. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.