1714311 (Refugee)

1714311 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 3191 (9 June 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:1714311

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Nigeria
MEMBER:David McCulloch
DATE:9 June 2021
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 09 June 2021 at 2:44pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Nigeria – religion – Christian – communal violence – fear of attacks by occultists – fear of Boko Haram – fear of kidnapping – threats of killing – general security and law and order situation – return from a Western country – delay in applying for protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
Luu & Anor v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39
MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 14 June 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Nigeria, applied for the visa on 15 September 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 3 June 2021. The applicant communicated with the Tribunal in English.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration. The Tribunal has before it the DFAT Country Information Report – Nigeria, 3 December 2020, a copy of which was provided to the applicant at the hearing.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is the credibility of the applicant and whether, on accepted claims, the criteria for protection are fulfilled. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The applicant first lodged an offshore temporary [student] visa application in 2012, which was granted. He entered Australia [in] July 2012. The applicant then lodged an onshore residence [partner] visa application on 3 July 2014, which was refused on 17 August 2016. The applicant then lodged, on 15 September 2016, an onshore protection (XA866) visa application that was refused by the Department on 14 June 2017.
The following information is apparent from the application for protection forms. The applicant was born in Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria on [date]. The applicant speaks, reads and writes English and Bini. The applicant has [number] brothers and [number] sisters. [A number of them] remain with his mother in Nigeria, whilst [another sibling] lives in Canberra, ACT. He has [another sibling] living in [Country 1]. The applicant is a Pentecostal, practising, Christian. The applicant’s father is deceased, and his mother remains in Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria. The applicant was married to an Australian, however, that relationship broke down. Before arrival in Australia the applicant lived at two addresses in Nigeria; from [specified year] until August 2007, the applicant lived at one address in Benin City, Nigeria, before moving to another address from August 2007 until July 2012, also in Benin City, Nigeria.
The applicant attended [College 1] from May 1997 until July 2001 and achieved [a Qualification 1], and attended [College 2] from January 2013 until December 2013, and completed a [Qualification 2]; he also studied [Subject 1] in Australia from October 2015 until December 2015 and achieved a [Qualification 3] and a [Qualification 4], and [Qualification 5]. The applicant was employed in Nigeria from October 2010 until March 2012 at [Employer 1] as a [Occupation 1]. The applicant was then employed in Australia: at [Employer 2] from September 2012 until March 2014 as [an Occupation 2], [and Occupation 3]; from September 2013 until March 2014 at [Employer 3] as [Occupation 4]; and from September 2015 until the present at [Employer 4] [in various roles].
In the application forms the applicant claimed that whilst growing up in Benin City, he faced ongoing fears for his life due to occultists in Nigeria. The applicant witnessed the shooting of a local by occultists. The applicant further made claims regarding fear from militant violence, and the terrorist organisation Boko Haram, that his cousin succumbed to the violence in Nigeria and that the authorities could not protect him.
Specifically, the applicant set out his claims to the various questions as follows (not corrected for spelling or grammar):
Why did you leave that country(s)? Provide specific details
I came to Australia on student visa to escape the rising threat to living in Nigeria. All my Life I was living in fear of being hurt or killed growing up in the environment where I grew up. There were always some violence here are there.
Young guys who were members of secret cults had constant clashes and fights they always left dead bodies everywhere. Growing up in these neighbourhood was scary as we were all afraid for our lives. There was one incident where I was walking on the road, a car pulled up beside me and a young man emerged with a short gun and shot another man who was just walking beside me twice, got back in car and drove off. I was in shock and could not move. I was so scared as I could have been shot by mistake. Could be caught in a crossfire. This is what my growing up was like. Some nights we are woken up by the sounds of multiple gunshots like battle. It is very frightening.
I can not forget this experiences as they happened to me. The situation now is even worse as there are no jobs for the youths, people will do anything to survive which include robbery, kidnapping, assassination.
What do you think will happen to you if you return to that country(s)?
I will be risking my life if I return as I could be kidnapped, badly hurt or killed as this happened to my cousin.
When I was preparing to come to Australia. In 2012, my cousin ([Cousin A]) was in Nigeria for a visit. I came to Australia and hoped to see him when he returned from his trip to Nigeria but he never returned. We got the news that he had been murdered. His wife and three sons are here living in [Australia]. That was how the last we saw of my cousin as he Went to see his old friend but he was attacked and murdered. (before his death he worked [in a specified industry in Australia]). Safety is not guaranteed, and one is an easy target if you are from overseas. One could be robbed, kidnapped or killed and your belongings taken just like what happened to my cousin.
Thinking back to those years growing up was terrible. I was lucky to have left the country alive and I don't want to return and experience that kind of experience again. I still remember the incident of the young man that was killed just few inches beside me. I was so scared and in shock as that could have been me. These people who do these killings have no conscience and they are ruthless. I don't want to experience that again.
Give reasons for why you did not try to move to another part of the country(s)
I am from the southern part of Nigeria. The west, east and northern part are even worse as there are frequent tribal and religious conflicts where most Christians are either killed, injured and their houses burned down.
The country is not safe. As there are about 173 million people in Nigeria and there are no jobs and no support for the youths. This is the main cause of all the violence that has escalated over the years. This situation is getting worse as the terror groups are recruiting more youths to join them in creating more violence.
Give details (including the type of harm or mistreatment you are likely to experience, the person/people who would be responsible for the harm or mistreatment, why they would harm or mistreat you)
Yes, I could be seriously harmed or mistreated if I return to Nigeria. My past experience and the one that happened to my cousin has made me afraid for my life and of returning there.
I have been here in Australia for some years now and would like I remain as it is peaceful here and away from all those dangers in Nigeria.
I left Nigeria with all I have and I have no life there as there is nothing out there for me anymore.
I would appreciate if my application is well considered and granted as I seriously fear going back there as my safety is not guaranteed.
And with the bombings and killings going on in the country, I do not feel safe to return to Nigeria.
Give details about why you think the authorities could not, or would not, protect you
The authorities cannot protect me. The authorities are not reliable and cannot be relied upon for protection.
The police cannot be relied upon to keep one safe as they are not as efficient as the Police in Australia. The situation is a lot more worse than it was few years ago. I cannot rely on the authorities for my protection.
There is also the issue of who to trust in the country.
It’s easy for people to know you are from overseas and they could harm you.
Give details about why you are unable to relocate
I would not be able to relocate as I don't know how safe it is. There have recently been a lot of tribal and religious conflicts in the southern Nigeria which is where I am from.
There is also the terror group called "Boko Haram" who has been killing lots of innocent people by bombing public gatherings like churches, police stations, court houses, schools. The government has not been able to take care of this rising threat as this is a major threat to safety of life in these regions. Everyone there are living in fear and most people are moving to neighbouring countries for refuge.
The applicant provided to the Department the following relevant documents:
·Internet media reports, some sourced, some unsourced, some undated, some with dates of 14 September 2016 and 27 April 2015 referring to clashes and individuals being killed in Benin City as a result of clashes with rival cult groups.
·Unsourced internet media report dated 19 April 2016 referring to an attack by Boko Haram in Borno leaving 30 Boko Haram terrorists killed and scores injured, but escaping.
·Facebook page of [Cousin A] with posts referring to the murder of [Cousin A] four years ago.
The Tribunal notes the following evidence of the applicant given in the interview with the delegate which took place on 22 May 2017. The applicant indicated that in around 2006 or 2007 he witnessed a cultist shooting a person in front of the applicant when individuals came out of a car. The applicant refers to hearing gunshots while sleeping. The applicant also refers to individuals trying to get into his house but that they were unsuccessful in doing so. The applicant indicated that those individuals were involved in a cult.
The applicant refers to being a Christian. This created problems with his uncle as he was an idol worshipper and was involved in ‘diabolic’ activities. The applicant indicated that people would not agree with him for being Christian. The applicant refers to groups like Boko Haram and that groups kill people in the north of Nigeria for being Christian. The applicant refers to another part of his family not liking the fact that the applicant and his family are Christian. They are cultists. These other family members took part of the estate of the applicant’s father after he died.
The applicant refers to his relative, who returned from Australia the year that the applicant arrived, being killed in Nigeria. The applicant indicates that the cultists’ incentive for harm is money not Christian beliefs.
The applicant refers to it being challenging as a Christian to work with some people but there were no pivotal events affecting the applicant; however, they did affect others that he knew. The applicant indicates that he has not been singled out as an individual by Boko Haram.
The applicant refers to potential harm from militants in the Niger Delta area where he lives. They have robbed the oil companies. They kidnap people for ransom. The applicant refers to this happening to a family friend who was beaten up and a ransom asked for.
The applicant indicates hurdles in obtaining protection from authorities. The applicant indicates that on one occasion he was arrested by police and taken into custody and beaten up. The applicant’s parents bailed him. This occurred in 1998 or 1999 when the applicant was coming from choir. It did not happen to the applicant again, but happened to his brother. This was in 2004 when his brother returned to Nigeria to visit their father. His brother now works for [an employer] in Canberra.
The delegate discusses with the applicant his delay of four years and two months in applying for protection as creating credibility concerns. The applicant indicates that initially he was studying and then got married, probably to be able to keep himself in the country. He did not want to return and experience what he experienced before. His intentions to marry were genuine but the relationship broke down. When the relationship broke down, the applicant had to think of what to do next and thought of applying for protection as this would enable him to stay in Australia.
Shortly before the Tribunal hearing, the applicant provided two references from employers dated 1 June 2021 and 2 June 2021, respectively, referring to the applicant being a good and diligent employee and attesting to his good character.
Independent information
The 2020 DFAT report on Nigeria provides the following information (underlining added):
SECURITY SITUATION
[2.54] While varying according to location, the security situation across Nigeria is unstable and highly fluid. Nigeria is confronted by multiple security challenges, including high rates of crime (including illicit gang activities), long-running insurgencies and secessionist movements in various parts of the country, escalating communal conflicts (sparked by land use disputes but increasingly drawing upon multiple ethnoreligious motivations) and rural banditry. In response to the range of security challenges confronting Nigeria, President Buhari announced a new National Security Strategy in December 2019.
Crime and Politically - Motivated Violence
[2.55] Nigeria’s crime rate is high for both violent and petty crime. Crime increases at night and includes assault, armed robbery, home invasions and carjacking. Assaults and robberies are common on public transport and in taxis, while petty crimes such as pickpocketing are common in crowds. Nigeria has a well established reputation as a centre for internet-based scams, often run by organised criminal gangs.
[2.56] Militant groups have regularly conducted terrorist attacks against a range of targets, including government and security institutions, oil facilities and infrastructure, the headquarters of international organisations and financial institutions, and transportation facilities such as bus bays. While these have occurred nationwide, they have been most common recently in the northeastern states in relation to the Boko Haram insurgency. In June 2019, for example, Boko Haram militants detonated explosives at a market in Konduga, southeast of Maiduguri, in Borno State, reportedly killing 30 people and injuring 40.
[2.57] Kidnappings and abductions have become an acute concern across the country, with 685 kidnappings recorded in the first quarter of 2019 alone. While kidnapping has been a tactic of Boko Haram during its insurgency (see following section), it has increasingly been used by factions in intercommunal conflicts elsewhere in the country and by criminals demanding ransom. Maritime kidnappings in the Niger Delta and the southeast are common, as militants have turned to piracy and related crimes to support themselves. In July 2019, for example, pirates boarded a cargo vessel off the coast of Bayelsa, taking 10 Turkish sailors away by speedboat and holding them for ransom. Prominent and wealthy figures (or their family members) are often targeted for abduction: in May 2019, armed assailants kidnapped the nephew of President Buhari, holding him for more than two months before police conducted a successful rescue operation.
[2.58] Long-standing tribal, religious, political and community disputes often lead to serious violence and unrest. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, Nigeria registered 7,972 deaths related to political, economic or social grievances in 2019. The majority of these (2,758) occurred in northeastern Borno state, followed by Zamfara state (1,274) and Kaduna state (487), also in the north. Over half of these deaths were related to the Boko Haram insurgency, although deaths have occurred in all parts of the country. According to human rights observers, security forces have often responded to civil unrest with disproportionate force, causing fatalities (see Extrajudicial Killings).
Boko Haram Insurgency
[2.59] Boko Haram, which translates roughly to ‘western education is sinful’ in the Hausa language, is a radical Islamist movement that has fought since 2009 to overthrow the government and create an Islamic state in northern Nigeria. The organisation split into two factions in 2016, one pledging allegiance to the socalled Islamic State organisation (Da’esh) and calling itself the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP); the other known as Jama’atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda’await Wal-Jihad (JAS). Most Nigerians still refer to both groups collectively as Boko Haram. This report does likewise.
[2.60] Boko Haram promotes a strict version of Islam that forbids Muslims from taking part in any political or social activity associated with Western society, including voting in elections, wearing shirts or trousers, drinking alcohol or receiving a secular education. While initially headquartered in the northeastern city of Maiduguri and still largely centred in Borno state, the Boko Haram insurgency has spread across northern and central Nigeria and into neighbouring countries.
The Boko Haram insurgency has targeted a range of groups, including those associated with the government (including police, military and politicians); individuals seen as supporting ‘western’ concepts such as secular education or elections; foreign aid workers; and clerics from other Muslim traditions and Christian preachers. Christians are opportunistically targeted by Boko Haram. However, Muslims are also victims of attacks, in greater numbers than Christians, principally because they constitute a greater proportion of the population in the affected northern states
[2.61] Its insurgent activities have included conventional warfare against state security forces; targeted killings of perceived opponents; bombings of churches, bus ranks, bars and military barracks; and mass attacks on villages and towns, resulting in looting, killing and mass abductions, including of children. In 2014, Boko Haram abducted 276 mostly Christian schoolgirls from Chibok, Borno state, reportedly forcing them to convert to Islam and become ‘wives’ for Boko Haram fighters. Around 100 of the Chibok girls remain unaccounted for. In February 2018, insurgents abducted a further 110 schoolgirls from Dapchi, Yobe state, releasing 104 of the girls two weeks later after negotiations with the government. Five of the remaining girls reportedly died in captivity and one girl continues to be held hostage, allegedly for refusing to deny her Christian faith.
[2.62] Boko Haram has also paid, forcibly conscripted, or otherwise coerced young boys and girls to serve in its ranks and perpetrate attacks and raids, plant improvised explosive devices (IEDs), serve as spies, and carry out person-borne IED bombings, often under the influence of drugs. For example, in the June 2019 attack in Konduga, Borno state, Boko Haram insurgents remotely detonated explosives strapped to two girls and a boy, killing 30 people
[2.63] Attempts by security authorities to curtail the Boko Haram insurgency in an enduring fashion have not proved fully successful to date. The government initially declared a state of emergency in May 2013 in the three northeastern states in which Boko Haram was strongest – Borno, Yobe and Adamawa – while in the same year, the Office of the Prosecutor in the International Criminal Court declared the fighting in northeastern Nigeria to be a non-international armed conflict. By March 2015, a regional coalition made up of troops from Nigeria, Cameroon, Chad and Niger had succeeded in winning back all of the towns under Boko Haram’s control, leading President Buhari to declare in 2015 that Boko Haram had been ‘technically defeated’. The insurgency has successfully regrouped in recent years, however, and continues to represent a significant security threat in the northeastern states. International observers report there was a resurgence of Boko Haram activity in 2019, with Boko Haram responsible for 1,136 deaths in Nigeria in 2019, compared to 872 in 2018.
[2.64] Examples of recent Boko Haram insurgent activities include (but are not limited to):
- in January 2019, Boko Haram fighters killed at least 60 people in the town of Rann, Borno State;
- in July 2019, suspected Boko Haram fighters killed at least 65 people attending a funeral in Borno state; while in the same month a Da’esh-aligned faction of Boko Haram kidnapped six aid workers near Damasak in Borno state, subsequently executing five of them.
- On 28 September 2020, militants from ISWAP overran a Nigerian military base in the northeastern town of Gubio, killing soldiers and seizing materiel.
[2.65] On 28 November 2020, in an attack centred on the village of Koshobe in Borno state, at least 43 farmers were killed in what the UN described as ‘the most violent direct attack against innocent civilians this year’. Some reports claim up to 110 people were killed, including around 30 beheaded. A number of people, including around ten women, remain missing, presumably abducted. The attack occurred relatively close to the state capital of Maiduguri, and is strongly believed to have been carried out by ISWAP.
[2.66] Boko Haram’s resurgence comes despite the deployment of thousands of troops to the northeastern states, and the reported government allocation of almost USD80 million (AUD110.8 million) per quarter to combat the insurgency. International observers have expressed concern over a lack of discipline in military operations, noting that reports of low morale among soldiers caused by insufficient military equipment and medical care (and fuelled by high rates of corruption within the military) may be degrading the effectiveness of efforts to defeat the insurgency. Human rights groups have also raised repeated concerns government security forces have committed significant human rights abuses in the context of counter-insurgency efforts against Boko Haram, including extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary arrests and other abuses (see relevant sections).
[2.67] DFAT assesses Boko Haram poses a serious ongoing threat to security in the northeast of Nigeria, with limited prospects of being neutralised in the short term. [1]
[1] DFAT, Country Information Report – Nigeria, 3 December 2020, para [2.54] – [2.67].
…….
Militia Group Activities in the Niger Delta
[2.73] Residents in the Niger Delta region have long complained they have not benefited economically or developmentally from the resources in their oil-rich area, while suffering from environmental damage caused by the oil industry. Although the government established the Niger Delta Development Commission in 2000 to coordinate infrastructure development and the delivery of resources to the region, those complaints have persisted and there has been recurring violence between militia groups competing for land and oil resources and security forces sent to restore order.
[2.74] The peak period for violence was from 2006 to 2009, when militia groups (most notably the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND)) regularly attacked petroleum operations and engaged in sabotage, theft, property damage and kidnapping. The government initiated the Presidential Amnesty Programme (PAP) in 2009, which granted unconditional amnesty and financial compensation to militants who surrendered their arms. However, violence erupted again in 2016 after the newly elected Buhari Government scaled down the PAP, delaying payments to militants.
[2.75] Authorities have subsequently taken a security-focused approach to the issue, with the military conducting an annual (since 2016) law and order exercise in the region named Operation Crocodile Smile. DFAT understands there have not been any substantial attacks on the oil industry by militia groups in the Niger Delta region since January 2017. However, a number of militia groups continue to operate in the region, including MEND and a newer group called the Niger Delta Avengers. DFAT does not have any specific information in relation to these groups.[2]
[2] DFAT, Country Information Report – Nigeria, 3 December 2020, para [2.73] – [2.75].
……..
RELIGION
[3.11] Article 10 of the Constitution prohibits either the federal or state governments from adopting any religion as a State Religion, while Article 23 includes religious tolerance as a defined national ethic. Articles 15(2) and 42(1) prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion, while Article 38(1) guarantees freedom of religion, including the freedom to change religion or belief, and the freedom (either alone or in community, and in public or private) to manifest and propagate their religion or belief through worship, teaching, practice and observance. Article 15(3)(c) and (d) stipulate it is the duty of the State to encourage interfaith marriages and promote associations that cut across religious (or other sectional) barriers in order to promote national integration, while Article 222 prohibits political parties who limit their membership based on religion or who have names with religious connotations.
[3.12] While there are no official indicators of religious affiliation in Nigeria, most analysts say the population is roughly evenly divided between Muslims and Christians, while approximately 2 per cent belong to other or no religious groups. Many individuals syncretise indigenous animism with Islam or Christianity. The traditional divide between the ‘Muslim North’ and ‘Christian South’ remains, although there are Christian communities in the north of the country and Muslim communities in the south. A mix of Muslims and Christians of various ethnicities comprise the Middle Belt, and major cities remain a fluid mix of different ethnicities and religions. Ethnicity is not necessarily a determinant of religious identity: many ethnic groups include both Muslims and Christians.
[3.13] The vast majority of Nigerian Muslims are Sunni, with estimates of the percentage of the Shi’a population ranging from less than 5 per cent to as high as 17 per cent. The Shi’a presence is heavily concentrated in the northwestern states of Kaduna, Katsina, Sokoto, Zamfara, and Kano. Ahmadi Muslims maintain a small presence in several cities, including Lagos and Abuja. Approximately three-quarters of Nigerian Christians are Protestant, with Anglican, Baptist and Presbyterian churches reportedly maintaining the largest populations. A range of other denominations are also highly active, including evangelicals, Pentecostals, Anabaptists, Methodists, Seventh-Day Adventists, New Apostolics, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Around a quarter of Nigerian Christians are Roman Catholics. Evangelical Christian denominations are growing rapidly in the North Central and South East, South, and South West regions.
[3.14] Both federal and state governments have the authority to regulate mandatory religious instruction in public schools. Article 38(2) of the Constitution prohibits schools from requiring students to receive religious instruction or to participate in or attend any religious ceremony or observance pertaining to any religion other than their own. State officials and many religious leaders have stated students have the right to request a teacher of their own religious beliefs to provide an alternative to any instruction offered in a religion other than their own. Article 38(3) of the Constitution says no religious community will be prevented from providing religious instruction to students of that community in any place that community wholly maintains.
[3.15] The states of Bauchi, Borno, Katsina, and Yobe maintain state-level Christian and Muslim religious affairs ministries or bureaus with varying mandates and authorities, while many other state governors appoint interfaith special advisers on religious affairs. Kano and Zamfara states have state-sanctioned Hisbah Boards that regulate Islamic religious affairs and preaching, license imams and attempt to resolve religious disputes between Muslims in those states. Several states also have laws requiring licenses for preachers, places of worship, and religious schools for registered religious groups. Katsina state, for example, has a board with the authority to regulate Islamic schools, preachers, and mosques, including issuing permits, suspending operations, and imprisoning or fining violators. The Katsina law stipulates a punishment of one to five years in prison and/or a fine of up to 500,000 naira (AUD1830) for operating without a license.
[3.16] An attempt by the Kaduna state legislature to pass a law to regulate religious preaching was stymied in June 2019 by the state’s highest court, which nullified the law on the grounds it was inconsistent with constitutional guarantees for freedom of expression, association and religion. The law would have required all preachers to be licensed by a state-level body composed of religious leaders, government officials and security agencies. Muslim and Christian religious leaders had criticised the proposed law for infringing on freedom of speech.
[3.17] As noted in Recent History, from 1999, sharia Penal Codes and Criminal Procedure Codes were reintroduced in 12 northern states with predominantly Muslim populations (having been abolished under British colonial rule). These are Zamfara, Kano, Sokoto, Katsina, Bauchi, Borno, Jigawa, Kebbi, Yobe, Kaduna, Niger and Gombe states. In some cases, the reintroduction of sharia had the effect of amplifying existing tensions between Muslim and Christian communities (and between Sunni and Shi’a). In some cases, this led to localised protests that resulted in fatalities. DFAT is not aware of any recent examples of major protests or communal violence in northern Nigeria in relation to the existence or practices of sharia courts.
[3.18] The government has occasionally cracked down on the activities of religious groups that have questioned its authority. The most notable recent example is the government’s clash with the Shi’ite Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN), which escalated in August 2019 after authorities proscribed the group as a terrorist organisation. Although other religious leaders (including the then-Catholic Archbishop of Abuja) criticised the ban as a threat to religious freedom for all believers, the government emphasised its proscription of the IMN was not intended to prevent peaceful and law-abiding Shi’ites from practicing their religion. DFAT is not aware of any incidents in which authorities have prevented Shi’a unaffiliated with the IMN from undergoing religious practices, or otherwise discriminated against them. DFAT assesses the ban on the IMN was related to the group’s political activities rather than their religious identity.
[3.19] International observers report some state and local governments have ‘endorsed’ de facto official religions in their territories, thereby placing limits on the religious activities of other groups. Members of both Christian and Muslim groups have reported cases in which some state and local government laws have discriminated against them, including by limiting their rights to freedom of expression and assembly and in obtaining government employment. Christian activists have claimed children from religious minority communities face discrimination in several sharia states, including being denied access to specific educational courses, the non-release of final results, being compelled to study a religion different from their own and being denied school/university admission or scholarships. DFAT assesses such reports are credible, but in most cases are likely to be the result of state and local governments operating policies of ‘positive discrimination’ in favour of the ‘indigene’ and/or majority population rather than active discrimination on religious-based grounds.
[3.20] Despite claiming an Islamist motivation, Boko Haram has regularly committed attacks against both Christian and Muslim religious communities and institutions during its insurgency in the northeast. Person-borne IED attacks have targeted both churches and mosques: according to the Council on Foreign Relations, Boko Haram has destroyed 59 churches and 22 mosques since 2010. In July 2019, the group ambushed and killed 65 persons returning from a funeral in a predominantly Muslim community, while in December 2019 an ISWAP-affiliated faction released a video of them executing 10 Christians and one Muslim to avenge the death of Da’esh leader al-Baghdadi.
[3.21] As noted in Security Situation, ongoing conflict between herdsmen (predominantly Muslim Fulani) and farmers (Muslim and Christian) in the Middle Belt has resulted in numerous deaths, injuries and displacements. Multiple Christian NGOs have stated religious identity is a primary driver of the conflict, arguing violence has predominantly targeted Christian communities, religious leaders and churches. In 2019, there were numerous reports by media and religious groups of cases in which attackers of allegedly Fulani ethnicity attacked, killed or kidnapped for ransom priests and other Christian clergy and their families. In August 2019, 200 Catholic priests marched through the streets of Enugu, Enugu state, to protest insecurity and what they characterised as Fulani attacks on Christians. Authorities have stated the cases were criminal acts and not religiously motivated. There have also been cases of attacks or kidnappings involving Muslim religious figures, and cases in which Muslims have been killed or displaced, albeit in lower numbers than Christians.
[3.22] While not discounting religious identity as a contributing factor, a number of international and domestic analysts have argued the conflict is multi-dimensional. In addition to religion, analysts cite ethnicity, politics, lack of accountability and access to justice, increasing competition over dwindling land resources, population growth, soil degradation and internal displacement from crime and other forms of violence as drivers contributing to the violence. Several experts have noted armed conflicts in the Sahel and Lake Chad Basin (particularly the Boko Haram insurgency) have altered grazing routes and brought herder groups in contact with new communities, sometimes leading to conflict because they are unaware of pre-existing agreements between the local herding and farming groups. The UN has also noted demographic and ecological pressures have resulted in internal transhumance (movement of livestock) in the Middle Belt in recent years.
[3.23] In December 2019, the US Department of State added Nigeria to a Special Watch List for governments that have engaged in or tolerated severe violations of religious freedom. DFAT understands this action was taken due to the perceived failure of state authorities to protect religious communities from insurgency-related violence.[3]
[3] DFAT, Country Information Report – Nigeria, 3 December 2020, para [3.11] – [3.23].
Hearing, credibility, findings, and assessment

The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is “well-founded” or that it is for the reason claimed. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out: MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision making (Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275 at 288), the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant’s case for him or her: Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70; Luu & Anor v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39 at 45. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant: Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437.
In considering overall the credibility of the applicant the Tribunal is cognisant of the words of Beaumont J in Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 in which he stated that ‘in the proof of refugeehood, a liberal attitude on the part of the decision-maker is called for… [but this should not lead to]… an uncritical acceptance of any and all allegations made by supplicants’. The Tribunal notes also the remarks of Gummow and Hayne JJ in Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510 at 191 where it was said that ‘the fact that an applicant for refugee status may yield to temptation to embroider an account of his or her history is hardly surprising’. The Tribunal has sought to adopt the liberal approach outlined in these cases.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of Nigeria and accordingly his claims will be assessed against Nigeria.
In the hearing, after the exploration of his claims, the applicant indicated that he essentially fears harm in Nigeria based on the general security and law and order situation. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was claiming there were specific attributes that he held that increased the risk to the applicant beyond that applicable to the general population of Nigeria as a result of the law and order situation.
In this respect, the Tribunal indicated to the applicant that its assessment of the independent information, in the DFAT report, as to the security and law and order situation in Nigeria was that, although there were security and law and order problems, the nature and extent of those problems would not persuade the Tribunal that every resident of Nigeria faced the requisite risk of harm that would meet protection criteria. The Tribunal asked the applicant on a number of occasions in the hearing if there were attributes particular to him, which increased the risk to him beyond that of the general population.
The applicant made reference in response to only one issue, that the risk to him is increased because he has been resident in Australia and that this will increase the potential for targeting of him for kidnap in Nigeria. The applicant had indicated in the hearing that he was not claiming that he was otherwise singled out or targeted by individuals or groups in Nigeria for harm.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that no independent information was before the Tribunal or had been provided by the applicant that would support the contention that there was a particular risk of harm to individuals in Nigeria who have lived in western countries. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was not inclined to accept in the absence of independent information being provided that this was the case.
The applicant indicated in the hearing that he was not (continuing) to make claims that he is at personal risk of harm from Boko Haram or from militants in the Niger Delta region. The applicant also indicated that he was not seeking to meet protection criteria in relation to claims of difficulties getting a job in Nigeria or the economic situation more generally.
The applicant confirmed in the hearing earlier evidence he had given in the interview with the delegate that he himself had not faced any particular difficulties in Nigeria as a result of his Christian activity, which the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has and does engage in. However, the applicant referred to harm being faced by others as a result of Christian activity.
With one exception, the applicant was credible in the hearing as to claimed instances of harm suffered by him in Nigeria. The Tribunal is satisfied with evidence given by the applicant that in 1998 or 1999 when a group of men including the applicant from the church choir were coming home they were confronted by police, with the applicant being slapped when he tried to talk back to the police. The applicant indicated that the men were aggressively bundled into a van and taken to the police station. It was not clear to the applicant why police confronted the men. The applicant indicated that there was no harm perpetrated at the police station and the applicant was released when his mother came to the police station to collect him.
The Tribunal accepts there was a situation in which an individual was shot in front of the applicant on the street by, the applicant assumes, people who were cultists.
The Tribunal accepts that a relative of the applicant who lived in Australia was killed in Nigeria on return.
The Tribunal accepts that there were non-immediate family members who were cultists who were principally motivated by financial issues and gained possession of the family home after the applicant’s father passed away in 2008.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant would hear gunshots from the street when he was sleeping.
The Tribunal has some credibility issues with one new claim made by the applicant that harm was suffered by him in Nigeria when he was assaulted. When providing elaboration, the applicant indicated that this involved a fight with other young man. The Tribunal noted to the applicant that no claim to this effect was made in his written claims as part of his protection visa application or in the interview with the delegate.
The Tribunal also noted to the applicant that his claim that this event happened one or two years before he came to Australia in 2012 was inconsistent with his evidence in the hearing that the incident had happened when he was at school, when the applicant had also given evidence in the hearing that he had terminated his [university] studies in [an earlier year].
In response, the applicant referred to confusion and that there were potentially multiple instances.
On balance, the Tribunal gives the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accepts that there was at least one incident in which he was involved in a fight with other young men.
In the hearing, the applicant indicated that he decided that he needed to seek protection in Australia in 2014. The applicant indicated that his purpose when originally coming in 2012 had been to study (as opposed to seeking protection). The Tribunal noted to the applicant that his delay of more than four years from arrival in Australia to seeking protection could cast doubt on the genuineness of the claimed fear in terms of meeting protection criteria. This includes because there is no apparent catalyst or change in the situation in 2014 to cause the risk to the applicant in Nigeria to suddenly emerge. The Tribunal put to the applicant that in the context of his other visas held, and the rejection of his partner visa, the timing of his application for the protection visa could be seen as more consistent with a last attempt to seek to remain in Australia rather than to demonstrate genuine claims for protection.
In response, the applicant indicated that he genuinely wanted to settle with his wife, but the relationship did not work out and it was only then that he decided he could not return to Nigeria and therefore he applied for the protection visa. As he had previously held other visas he had not previously applied for the protection visa.
The Tribunal remains concerned as to the extent of the applicant’s claimed fears in Nigeria because of his significant delay from arrival in Australia in applying for protection, and the applicant only deciding, for reasons that are unclear, that protection was needed in 2014.
As indicated, the applicant is essentially claiming that he faces a real risk of serious or significant harm in Nigeria because he would be susceptible as a citizen and resident to the lack of general security in Nigeria and the problematic law and order situation.
The only claimed attribute of the applicant putting him at a greater risk than the general population is the claim by the applicant that his having lived in Australia puts him at a greater risk of kidnapping. In the absence of any independent information before the Tribunal supporting such a contention or having been provided by the applicant, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is any increased risk to the applicant on return to Nigeria as a result of having lived in Australia.
While the Tribunal accepts as indicated above various instances of harm suffered by the applicant in Nigeria, these, in the Tribunal’s views are random, isolated, one-off events which do not demonstrate any targeting of the applicant or suggest a greater propensity to further harm being suffered by the applicant on return to Nigeria beyond that faced by the general population. The applicant confirmed in the hearing that he is not the specific target for ongoing harm of any individuals or groups in Nigeria.
The Tribunal accepts that the independent information does demonstrate not insignificant difficulties in terms of the security and law and order situation in Nigeria. However, notwithstanding those concerns, the Tribunal is not satisfied that every Nigerian resident faces a real chance of serious or significant harm based on the security and law and order situation.
The applicant agreed in the hearing that problems facing Christians in Nigeria (making up a significant proportion of the population) were not such that every Christian in Nigeria faced a real chance of serious or significant harm. As indicated, the applicant in the hearing confirmed that he had not himself faced any difficulties in Nigeria as a result of his Christian practice.
The Tribunal also does not consider that the independent evidence demonstrates a real chance of serious or significant harm in Nigeria for every Nigerian practising Christianity. The applicant conceded this. The Tribunal does not consider there is any particular characteristic of the applicant’s Christian practice that increases the risk of harm to him.
The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that there is any particular attribute of the applicant that puts the risk to him in Nigeria beyond that applicable to the general population in relation to his claims generally.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s claims prior to the hearing could tend to suggest that he is making claims of harm from Boko Haram and from militants in the Niger Delta region; the Tribunal reiterates that in the hearing the applicant indicated that he is not making claims of harm from these groups.
In any event, as put to the applicant in the hearing, DFAT information referring to Boko Haram indicates that adverse activities are mainly located in the north-east of Nigeria and that the applicant is from the south. In relation to the situation in the Niger Delta, DFAT information indicates that there have been no attacks by militants since January 2017.
Given these findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious or significant harm for any of the reasons claimed.
In summary, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason set out in s.5J(1) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Nigeria, there is a real risk of him suffering significant harm.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
David McCulloch
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2021] AATA 3191

9 June 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Appeal