1717371 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 2982

1717371 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 2982 (21 May 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1717371

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Cameroon

MEMBER:Paul Noonan

DATE:21 May 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 21 May 2021 at 10:37am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Cameroon –feared harm from a wealthy political influential landowner – imputed political opinion –  a supporter of pro-Ambazonia factions – membership of a particular social group – member of the Cameroon Anglophone diaspora – relocation is not possible or reasonable – fear of persecution from the authorities is well-founded – decision under review remitted  

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5, 36, 65, 91, 499

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Cameroon applied for the visa on 1 August 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 27 July 2017.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 29 April 2021 to give evidence and present arguments.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent.

   RELEVANT LAW

5. 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, the applicant 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.

   Refugee criterion

6. 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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

7. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and, generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

   owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

8. Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.

9. There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.

10. Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s 91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s 91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s 91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s 91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.

11. Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.

12. Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition – race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s 91R(1)(a) of the Act.

13. Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well‑founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have a genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far‑fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.

14. In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.

15. Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.

    Complementary protection criterion

16. 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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).

17. ‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A): s 5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’ and ‘torture’ are further defined in s 5(1) of the Act.

18. There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s 36(2B) of the Act.

    Mandatory considerations

19. 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 expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

20. The issue in this case is whether Australia owes the applicant protection. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

21. The applicant made a written claim for protection from Australia on the basis that she feared harm from a wealthy political influential landowner in Cameroon. This was on the basis that she had attracted his adverse attention because she had urged local landholders to take legal action against the landowner when she had attended a public meeting regarding issues affecting the local people Mbororo people. The applicant gave evidence that she had attended this meeting when she was working to support local Mbororo children in her local [area] of Cameroon. The delegate had concerns with respect to the plausibility of the applicant’s claim to have founded a non-government organisation called “[name deleted]”. However, the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that this was a very small charity she had founded with her sister and they had only sponsored [number] Mbororo children with respect to their school fees. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has studied [a subject] and also had done some past volunteer work for NGOs and this led her to attempt this type of charity work on a very small scale. She gave evidence that at this time she primarily supported herself through trading [products]. Given this background, the Tribunal accepts as plausible that the applicant had spoken out at the public meeting as claimed.

22. The applicant claimed that she was subsequently threatened in the street by the wealthy landholder’s people. Then, while visiting Australia in [2014], another threat towards her had been issued via her mother. She then decided to apply for protection in Australia.

23. The Tribunal discussed this claim with the applicant who gave reasonably consistent and plausible evidence on the issue. However, when asked whether she had followed developments with respect to the wealthy political influential landowner, she stated that she had not. The Tribunal noted that the events in question had occurred many years ago and questioned the applicant as to whether the wealthy landholder would still be adversely interested in her. The applicant stated that this may be the case, however this was also no longer the primary reason as she is now seeking protection due to subsequent developments in Cameroon. The Tribunal notes that there is no evidence that the wealthy landholder has issued any more threats to the applicant or sought her out in any way. Further, the events in question occurred some seven years ago. The wealthy landholder has not contacted the applicant’s family again and has issued no further threats of any kind. The Tribunal is satisfied that there is not a real chance that the applicant will be subjected to serious harm for reason of her single show of vocal support for the Mbororo people in their struggles against the wealthy landholder back in 2014. This is because the Tribunal is satisfied that the wealthy landholder retains no interest in the applicant whether adverse or otherwise.

24. The applicant also claims to fear harm due to her imputed political opinion. This is on the basis that she will be perceived to be a supporter of pro-Ambazonia factions seeking independence for her English-speaking home province from the majority-ruled French‑speaking parts of Cameroon. The applicant noted that, at the outbreak of hostilities arising from this conflict in 2016 and 2017, she had expressed her support for her home area. She submitted a [social media] post of herself and a friend from 2017 waving flags of her home region. She also noted that she had participated in discussion groups with the local diaspora about events back home. She claimed to have forwarded some money in support of her home area to a friend who was actively supporting the repatriation of money for the independence cause. However, she had not retained the receipt with respect to this transfer. She also claimed that a friend in this discussion group had subsequently informed the Cambodian government of people’s identities and two people associated with it had subsequently been detained upon returning to Cameroon where they remained incarcerated. On the basis of evidence submitted to the Tribunal, in the form of a government‑produced propaganda item aimed at Cameroon English-speaking diaspora in Australia and the country information set out later in these reasons, the Tribunal accepts that this has occurred. The applicant claimed that members of the local diaspora, who had been identified in this process and by public exposure at small demonstrations, had been sent this threatening documentation from the Cameroon authorities. She fears that if she were to attempt to re‑enter the country, she would be identified by the authorities as a person of adverse interest and detained and tortured and possibly killed.

25. In addition to the above concerns, the applicant also claimed to fear harm from Ambazonian independence factions. She noted that these groups have been reported as engaging in significant levels of violence and when she became aware of this, she stopped supporting them. These groups make continual demands upon locals for financial support and threaten abduction, harm and conscription of families and children if this is not forthcoming. Her own family have moved to various areas of the country seeking safety but live in fear and receive contacts from these groups demanding support. They are all also afraid of French‑speaking militant aggression as well as this ongoing aggression from the separatists in their home area.

26. After considering the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is an English‑‑speaking woman from [location], Cameroon. She has studied [a subject] at tertiary level and has conducted some past charity work in support of underprivileged children’s schooling in her local area.

27. Since the applicant has been in Australia, the situation in Cameroon has radically altered with large-scale upheaval and human rights atrocities centred on her home area, which the Tribunal will consider further in these reasons below. The Tribunal accepts as reasonably plausible that the applicant engaged in discussion groups with her local diaspora, with respect to events back home, and that she expressed solidarity and support for the English‑speaking people of her home area at the commencement of these upheavals. The Tribunal accepts that she posted an initial message of support on [social media] at that time, as submitted in evidence, and that she attended a small public protest. The Tribunal accepts that these activities were not undertaken at that time for the sole purpose of strengthening her refugee claim as they were modest activities and the applicant does not appear to have worked on her profile in this regard to any systematic extent. The Tribunal also accepts as reasonable that the applicant subsequently ceased any such shows of support when she became aware of violence perpetrated by the separatists in her home area, which strengthens the Tribunal’s view that the activities were not undertaken for the purposes of strengthening her refugee claims. The Tribunal notes that there is also credible country information before it that documents significant human rights abuses by both sides in the conflict in the applicant’s home area and within the country generally in recent years. The Tribunal also accepts that members of the English-speaking Cameroon diaspora in Melbourne, Australia, have been sent targeted threats from the Cameroon authorities with respect to perceptions that they have been supporting Ambazonian independence factions, as evidenced by a document submitted by the applicant in evidence that reflects this. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant resides in Melbourne and has interacted regularly with fellow members of this community.

    Country information

28. The current conflict centred on Anglophile areas of Cameroon appears to have commenced due to strike actions taken by local teachers. Reports confirm that strikes intended to increase the use of English in Cameroon have extended to schools and universities after lawyers and teachers in English-speaking regions protest about “the overbearing influence of French in the country, which has English and French as its official languages.”[1] Country information confirms that the Cameroon Anglophone Teachers Trade Union (‘CATTU’) promoted teacher protests/strikes in November 2016 in Cameroon. Reports confirm that a campaign of civil disobedience known as “Ghost Towns” resulted in the boycott of schools and businesses for certain days of the week.[2]

    [1] Julius T. Nganji & Lynn Cockburn (2019): Use of Twitter in the Cameroon

    Anglophone crisis, Behaviour & Information Technology, DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1620333

29. The Tribunal accepts that the strikes resulted in police brutality and violence. Media reports confirm that teachers backed by the CATTU in the English-speaking regions have continued to protest in response to abductions and violence during the two-year separatist conflict.[3]

    [3] Cameroon teachers protest escalating violence in separatist areas 27 May 2019 >

    The Tribunal has had regard to country information which confirms that North-West and South-West regions of Cameroon have a special historic legacy that sets them apart from the country’s other eight regions because they were ruled as a British Trust while the rest of the country was administered by the French.[4]

    [4] >

    Current reports confirm that the socio-political crisis which began in October 2016 with protests by teachers and lawyers in the Anglophone North-West and South-West regions turned into an armed conflict by the end of 2017, which has left 1,850 dead and 530,000 internally displaced and tens of thousands of refugees.[5]

    [5] Cameroon’s Anglophone Crisis: How to Get to Talks? Africa Report no.272 2 May 2019https://>

    Human Rights Watch’s 2019 Annual Report includes a section detailing government violations perpetrated against those perceived to support secessionist groups. While not specifically naming the Southern Cameroons National Council (‘SCNC’), the report states Human Rights Watch found that government forces responded to the growing separatist insurgency by carrying out abusive security operations against communities suspected of supporting secessionist groups. Security forces committed extrajudicial executions, used excessive force against civilians, tortured and abused suspected separatists and other detainees, and burned homes and other property in scores of villages. Human Rights Watch also documented three cases where security forces detained people suspected of supporting the secessionist cause, and then tortured and killed them in detention.[6]

    [6] Human Rights Watch World Report 2019', Human Rights Watch (HRW), 17 January 2019, p.116,

    20190118091502

1. According to Human Rights Watch, violence escalated in the Anglophone regions of Cameroon in the second half of 2019, following a trial involving separatist leaders:

   Violence has intensified since July 2019 in the North-West and South-West regions, escalating in August after a Yaoundé military court handed down life sentences to 10 leaders of the separatist Ambazonia Interim Government following a flawed trial. Human Rights Watch research and media reports indicate that at least 130 civilians have been killed in over 100 incidents since July, and thousands have been forced to flee. Given the ongoing violence and the difficulty of collecting information from remote areas, the number of civilian deaths – including of people with disabilities – is most likely higher.[7]

   [7] Cameroon: Make Humanitarian Response More Inclusive’, Human Rights Watch, 10 December 2019,

   20200109162559

2. Human Rights Watch 2020 Annual Report similarly notes:

   In Anglophone regions, violence intensified as government forces conducted large‑scale security operations and armed separatists carried out increasingly sophisticated attacks. Over 3,000 civilians and hundreds of security forces personnel have been killed in the Anglophone regions since 2016, when the crisis started…

   Responding to increasing attacks by armed separatist groups, security forces killed scores of people, burned hundreds of homes and other property in villages and cities across the North‑West and South-West regions, and tortured suspected separatists in detention.[8]

   [8] World Report 2020. Events of 2019', Human Rights Watch, 14 January 2020, pp.105-106, 20200115082903

3. The Tribunal has considered the following country information prepared by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) on the situation for Anglophone returnees to Cameroon:

   The researcher stated that "authorities in Yaoundé say that those in the diaspora are the ones spearheading the war," most notably in Canada, Belgium, South Africa and the US (Researcher 7 Aug. 2018). Similarly, the African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD), "a South Africa-based civil society organisation working throughout Africa" (ACCORD n.d.), notes that some state officials asserted that the protests in Cameroon's Anglophone regions were "fomented from abroad" (ACCORD 21 July 2017).

   According to NDH-Cameroun, Anglophone Cameroonians who live abroad and have a link with the crisis will be [translation] "tracked down and arrested, wherever they are," as "officially" stated by the Ministry of Administration (ministère de l'Administration) (NDH‑Cameroun Aug. 2018). The researcher said that "[a]nyone in the diaspora who is vocal against the authorities faces death or torture and imprisonment if they go to Cameroon" (Researcher 9 Aug. 2018). Regarding the "exile of Anglophone activists," International Crisis Group reports that "[m]any want to return home but are understandably frightened by the government's continued imprisonment of Anglophone militants" (International Crisis Group 26 Apr. 2018, 7). The International Crisis Group representative indicated that the Cameroonian authorities have issued arrest warrants against a number of known separatists who have fled the country, although "[t]hey are not many" (International Crisis Group 3 Aug. 2018). According to the same source, this "implies that they would be arrested if they return [to Cameroon]" (International Crisis Group 3 Aug. 2018). Similarly, the news website Journal du Cameroun reports that the Cameroonian government requested the arrest and deportation of separatist activists in the diaspora (in Belgium, Norway, the US, Austria, Nigeria and South Africa) (Journal du Cameroun 23 June 2018). The BBC also indicates that the authorities issued international arrest warrants for separatist leaders (BBC 9 Nov. 2017). Sources note that Cameroonian separatist leaders have been deported back to Cameroon by Nigerian authorities (African Courier 30 Jan. 2018; Daily Post 30 Jan. 2018). According to a summary of statements made by a UNHCR representative during a press briefing, there are reports of "arrests of Cameroonian nationals in Nigeria, including at least one asylum seeker at the beginning of March [2018]" (UN 20 Mar. 2018).

   The International Crisis Group representative said that "most of those who advocate for federalism or [who] have not been tagged as sponsors or supporters of armed separatists, move in and out of Cameroon as they wish" (International Crisis Group 3 Aug. 2018). However, according to the researcher, since October 2016, "there is danger across the national territory" for all Anglophones (Researcher 7 Aug. 2018).

   According to sources, Patrice Nganang, a [Francophone] Cameroonian writer [living in New York (Reuters 8 Dec. 2017)], was arrested at Douala airport and imprisoned in Yaoundé for "speaking in defence of the Anglophones" (Researcher 7 Aug. 2018) or after writing "a piece critical of the government's handling of [the] separatist crisis in its Anglophone region"; his lawyer said that he was accused of insulting the president (Reuters 8 Dec. 2017). He was released after being detained for [a few] weeks (Researcher 7 Aug. 2018; BBC 27 Dec. 2017).

   A January 2018 article by Reuters indicates that a [Cameroonian] former businessman "seen as a moderate voice in the separatist movement and [who] has in the past promoted dialogue over violence" has been "target[ed]" by the Cameroonian authorities; from Nigeria, he told Reuters that in December 2017, "his family home in Anglophone Cameroon was surrounded by government troops" (Reuters 29 Jan. 2018).

   The researcher indicated that Anglophone Cameroonians returning to Yaoundé or Douala are "not safe," as they "might be taken from the airport to prison to an unknown destination" (Researcher 7 Aug. 2018).

   According to the same source, Anglophone deportees, including failed asylum seekers, "can be imprisoned and fined, unless [they] brib[e] [their] way out" (Researcher 7 Aug. 2018).

   A 2015 Sciences Po Paris academic paper on post-deportation risks reports that returnees from Europe face threats of detention or imprisonment in Cameroon, and that failed asylum seekers can be submitted to violence upon their return (Blondel et al. May 2015, 5-6).[9]

   [9] Cameroon: Situation of Anglophones, including returnees, in Bamenda, Yaounde and Douala; treatment by society and by the authorities (2016-August 2018)’, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 24 August 2018, 20190528172002

4. The US Department of State reports in its 2020 Country Report on Human Rights that with respect to Cameroon during 2020:

   Significant human rights issues included: unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by security forces, armed Anglophone separatists, Boko Haram, and ISIS‑West Africa; forced disappearances by security forces; torture and cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government, Cameroonian peacekeepers deployed to UN missions, and nonstate armed groups; harsh and life‑threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrests; political prisoners or detainees; politically motivated reprisal against individuals located outside the country; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious restrictions on freedom of expression, the press, and the internet, including violence, threats of violence, or unjustified arrests or prosecutions against journalists, censorship, and criminal libel laws; substantial interference with the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; serious restrictions on freedom of movement; inability of citizens to change their government peacefully through free and fair elections; restrictions on political participation; serious acts of corruption; lack of investigations and accountability for violence against women; unlawful recruitment or use of child soldiers; trafficking in persons; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex persons; and the existence or use of laws criminalizing same-sex sexual conduct between adults.

   There were numerous reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary and unlawful killings through excessive use of force in the execution of their official duties. Most of the killings were associated with the armed conflict in the two Anglophone regions (see also section 1.g., Abuses in Internal Conflict). Additionally, many included unarmed civilians not in conflict-afflicted areas, and others resulted from the use of excessive force on citizens by government agents, including members of defence and security forces.[10]

   [10] US State Department 2020 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Cameroon, 30 March 2021

5. The UK Home Office[11] reports that:

   The 2015 Sciences Po paper by Blondel, Charlotte, et al, referred in the IRBC response – Post-Deportation Risks: Criminalized Departure and Risks for Returnees in Countries of Origin – is based on a review of available published material on returns to a number of countries including Cameroon undertaken in 2015. In reference to failed asylum seekers, the paper 213 IRBC, ‘Query response on the situation of Anglophones…’, 24 August 2018 Page 84 of 97 summarises the contents of a Danish Fact Finding Mission report of 2001, in turn based on a number of local sources: ‘The Danish Immigration Service reported that rejected asylum seekers deported in handcuffs and accompanied by a foreign police officer risk detention by the Cameroonian police. If the Cameroonian authorities know that the returnee has sought asylum abroad, he/she is suspected of having discredited Cameroon. Asylum seekers for economic reasons are released. ‘The Danish Immigration Service reported that if the Cameroonian authorities know that the returnee has sought asylum abroad, he/she is at risk of ill treatment or torture.’[12]

   [11] UK Home Office – Country Policy and Information Note – Cameroon: North-West/South West crisis, V.20, December 2020

   [12] Blondel, Charlotte, et al, ‘Post-Deportation Risks…’ (p9), May 2015

6. Reports confirm that the Cameroonian authorities are monitoring social media and consider the internet a threat. For example, a 2016 report confirms that Cameroon made the highest request for subscriber data out of all other African countries.[13] Reports also confirm that Cameroon’s administration does spy on citizens’ emails that they perceive are capable of threatening its internal security. It is further reported that the government’s monopoly over all mobile and internet infrastructures through its sole, state-owned telecom operator facilitates communications surveillance.[14] Specifically, recent reports also confirm that the use of social media platforms became widespread in Cameroon during the Anglophone crisis and this is known to the authorities.[15]

   [13] Global Information Society Watch, 2014 “The Stammerings of Cameroon’s communications surveillance” Julius T. Nganji & Lynn Cockburn (2019): Use of Twitter in the Cameroon

   Anglophone crisis, Behaviour & Information Technology, DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2019.1620333

   Is the applicant’s fear of harm well-founded?

7. The Tribunal finds that, given the applicant’s past social media postings and association with the Anglophone community in Melbourne, and the suspicion surrounding the Anglophone diaspora held by the authorities, the authorities would make enquiries about the applicant’s background upon her return to Cameroon and may already have her on a list of persons of interest in this regard. Given the country information above about the authorities’ general suspicion about returnees of the applicant’s profile, her past social media postings and her general associations, the Tribunal considers there is a real chance, such that there is more than a remote possibility, that she will be subjected to serious harm in the form of torture and possible arbitrary execution upon her immediate return to Cameroon by the local authorities. The Tribunal finds that this would constitute systematic and discriminatory conduct.

8. As the accepted risk of harm feared is at the hands of government authorities, the Tribunal finds the applicant cannot access state protection. In the absence of effective internal protection, the Tribunal finds that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution for reason of her membership of a particular social group, being a member of the Cameroon Anglophone diaspora, if she returns to Cameroon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. As the feared persecution is from the government authorities, and the Tribunal has found that there is a real chance the applicant will be subjected to serious harm immediately upon her attempted entry into the country, the Tribunal accepts that relocation within Cameroon is not possible or reasonable.

   CONCLUSIONS

9. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore, the applicant satisfies the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a).

   DECISION

10. The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958.

    Paul Noonan
    Member