1714228 (Refugee)

This matter concerns an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection's decision to refuse the applicant, a Nigerian citizen, a protection visa. The applicant arrived in Australia in 2001 and applied for a protection visa in 2007, alleging a fear of persecution in Nigeria due to his Christian faith and his active support of Christian missionaries. The procedural history of the application is complex, involving administrative errors that led to significant delays and the applicant being excluded from an earlier merits review concerning his wife and child. The applicant has been onshore since 2001, currently holding a bridging visa.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically his religion and imputed political opinion, such that he ought to be granted a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required the court to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding religious violence and persecution in Nigeria, particularly in the context of his activities as a Christian evangelist and his financial support of missionaries in Muslim-majority regions where Sharia law is implemented. The court also had to consider the general country information regarding the religious climate in Nigeria and the specific risks faced by Christians and those involved in evangelism.

The court considered the applicant's evidence, including his submissions about his family's involvement in Christian activities in Kaduna State, personal experiences of attacks on their property and churches, and the ongoing financial support provided to missionaries. The court acknowledged the principles of assessing evidence in protection visa claims, noting that the applicant bears the onus of providing sufficient detail to establish the statutory elements, while also cautioning against an overly stringent approach that might lead to unjust exclusion of credible evidence. The court referred to country information indicating a decline in Christianity in Nigeria and the implementation of Sharia law in northern states, where apostasy can carry the death penalty, and where those facilitating conversion are viewed with animosity. The court also noted the applicant's role as a trustee of an organisation that financially supports missionaries, even in areas where Sharia law is in effect.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that he had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. While acknowledging the applicant's claims and the general country information, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the onus of proof required to demonstrate that he would face significant harm amounting to persecution. Consequently, the application for review was remitted.