1723670 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for a Protection visa by a Nigerian national. The applicant claimed to be a member of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and asserted that he feared persecution in Nigeria due to his ethnicity, political activities, and religious beliefs. The decision under review was affirmed by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under the 'refugee' criterion, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution based on his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The court also considered the alternative 'complementary protection' criterion, which requires substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia, there is a real risk of significant harm.

The court's reasoning focused heavily on the applicant's credibility. It found significant credibility concerns arising from inconsistencies in his evidence regarding his alleged imprisonment, the authenticity of supporting documents such as a letter from an IPOB leader and newspaper articles, and his use of a Facebook account while claiming to be in prison. The court also noted that country information indicated the prevalence of false and fraudulent documents in Nigeria. Furthermore, the applicant's claims about experiencing persecution in Onitsha contradicted his assertion that he lived and worked in Lagos. Based on these findings, the court concluded that the applicant was not a witness of truth and had fabricated his narrative for the purpose of his visa application. Consequently, the court gave no weight to the applicant's evidence and supporting documents.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa. The court found that the applicant did not face a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution in Nigeria, either individually or cumulatively, for any of the reasons set out in the Migration Act 1958. The court also concluded that there were no substantial grounds for believing there was a real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection provisions.