1721243 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, a male of Kikuyu ethnicity and a Seventh-day Adventist, claimed he feared persecution in Kenya due to his religion, ethnicity, membership of a particular social group, and imputed political opinion. He alleged he would be targeted by al-Shabaab, face harm due to differing views within his church, be perceived as a supporter of the dominant political party, be prevented from operating a business by non-Kikuyu tribes, and suffer serious harm from the Mungiki. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa or Australia's complementary protection obligations.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of relevant policy guidelines and country information. It applied the principles of refugee law, including the assessment of a well-founded fear of persecution and the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to assess whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also took into account the definitions of "significant harm" and the circumstances under which a person would not be taken to face such a risk, as set out in sections 36(2A) and (2B) of the Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal found that the feared harm was speculative and did not meet the threshold required for the grant of a protection visa or for complementary protection. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.