1816797 (Refugee)

1816797 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 3217 (27 June 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Oumaru Kamara
CASE NUMBER:  1816797
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Sierra Leone
MEMBER:Louise Nicholls
DATE:27 June 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 27 June 2023 at 5:15pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Sierra Leone – political opinion – supported the All-People’s Congress party (APC) – fears harm from the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) – assaulted and suffered an injury in 2012 – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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

The applicant claims to be a citizen of Sierra Leone and is [age] years old. He was born in Freetown, Western Area, Sierra Leone in [year]. He came to Australia as the holder of a [temporary] visa for [Event 1] in 2018. His [temporary] visa was in effect until 15 May 2018.
The applicant applied for a protection visa on 10 May 2018.
The applicant attended an interview at the Department of Home Affairs on 29 May 2018. The Tribunal has reviewed the recording.
On the 5 June 2018 a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refused to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the requirements for that visa.
This is an application for review of that decision, and it was made on 8 June 2018.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on two occasions to give evidence and present arguments: the first on 2 June 2022 and the second on 11 October 2022.The applicant did not require an interpreter. Just prior to the hearing of 2 June 2022 the applicant appointed a representative who provided submissions on 1 June 2022.
The Tribunal has reviewed the audio recording of the hearings prior to making its decision.
The applicant gave evidence about his background, his migration history and his claims for protection.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Material before the Tribunal
The applicant provided a number of documents with his application, including:
Departmental file [number]
The applicant’s statement made on 10 May 2018 setting out his claims.
Medical reports and discharge summaries dated November and December 2012 and photographs of the applicant’s skull fracture and hospitalisation in Sierra Leone.
A Sierra Leone police request for medical information from [Hospital 1], Freetown Sierra Leone 2012.
Tribunal file
The applicant provided a copy of his NSW Driver’s licence and his representative’s written submissions dated 1 June 2022.
Consideration
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion and, if not, whether he is entitled to complementary protection.
The relevant law is set out in the attachment.
Background
The applicant is [age] years old and was born in Freetown, Western Area, Sierra Leone. The applicant can speak, read, and write in English (preferred language) and can speak, read, and write in Krio.
The applicant states that he is of Creole ethnicity[1] and of Christian faith. His mother, father and stepmother and [number] younger siblings living in Sierra Leone.
[1] Creole 1.2% (descendants of freed Jamaican slaves who were settled in the Freetown area in the late-18th century; also known as Krio) CIA World Factbook
He grew up in [Village 1] which is a village near the [specified] area of Freetown. The residents of the village are mainly engaged in fishing and market enterprises. His father was the headman of the village and a [sports] player, but he had little to do with him as he had been raised by his mother. Before he came to Australia he had not previously travelled outside Sierra Leone.
The applicant stated he had qualifications in [Discipline 1]. He completed certificate and diploma courses and finished college in 2016. He found work with an [Industry 1] company in 2017. His work involved [Occupation 1 work] and he also did some marketing.
In the first Tribunal hearing he told the Tribunal he had a partner and a [age]-year-old son in Sierra Leone, however he did not have frequent contact with them. In the second hearing he claimed his former partner and son had moved, he had lost contact with them and did not know where they were living. He also confirmed that he was in de facto relationship in Australia.
In 2018 when [Event 1] finished he flew back to Sydney but did not return to Sierra Leone. He contacted a friend from Sierra Leone who helped him with accommodation and gave him support.
In Australia he initially did a [specified] course at TAFE and then started studying [Discipline 1] at [named] TAFE at night. After a few months he had to give that up because he was getting headaches and was told that he needed more rest.
He initially had a [Occupation 2] job then joined a local council. He is now a [Occupation 3] with a private organisation which provides [specified services].
Country of reference
The applicant claims he was born in Sierra Leone and is a citizen of Sierra Leone. He provided a copy of his Sierra Leone passport which was issued [in] 2018. He has consistently claimed that he is of Sierra Leonean nationality, and he was familiar with the geography and culture of Sierra Leone.
Taking into account the available evidence, and noting there is no issue as to identity or nationality, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of Sierra Leone and that Sierra Leone is the receiving country for the purpose of s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
What are the applicant’s claims?
The applicant’s claims are set out in the application for protection and in an undated statement made by the applicant. The applicant discussed his claims for protection with the delegate at an interview on 29 May 2018.
On 1 June 2022 the applicant’s representative made written submissions on the applicant’s claims which included a discussion of his claims.
The applicant gave oral evidence concerning his claims at Tribunal hearings held on 2 June and 11 October 2022.
Essentially the applicant claims if he returns to Sierra Leone he faces serious harm because of his political opinion and the political activity he has undertaken in support of the All-People’s Congress party (APC). He fears harm from the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) government including authorities and the SLPP community supporters.
In his application for protection made on 10 May 2018 and accompanying statement the applicant claimed that he worked as a freelance journalist and a political activist.
He claims that he started his political involvement with the APC in 2011 and campaigned in 2011 for the 2012 elections as a freelance journalist and activist for the youth of the [Village 1] constituency. He stated he worked closely for [Mr A] who was running for a seat in parliament and that he was in charge of the local APC community election campaign.
He claimed he started receiving regular threats in 2012 from a group of youths from the SLPP and was attacked on 15 December 2012 at his house by SLPP youth. They assaulted him and he was hospitalised with a fractured skull. He provided medical reports and photographs to support this claim. After his release from hospital, he was assigned two military personnel to protect him and his family until after the election. He identified six people who assaulted him and they were charged. He stated he can provide a police report to support this evidence.
He claimed that while the APC was still in power, he continued his involvement with them. He arranged community meetings, meetings in cafes and in his home with youth. He stated he was not harmed during this time.
He claimed that when he started to campaign again for the 2018 elections, he started to receive threats from SLPP supporters in his community.
On 26 February 2018, he claimed the local SLPP campaign team consisting of [Mr B], [Mr C], [Mr D] and [Mr E], took him hostage. They interrogated him to try and gain information about the APC campaign strategies. They told him it was his last chance to change political parties. They warned him that if he did not change parties by the time the election was over, he and his family would be killed, burnt with tyres. They held him for a few hours, but he refused to answer their questions, so they beat him and then released him.
After this abduction, he became fearful of future harm and attempted to move to [Country 1]. On route, he was harassed by SLPP loyalists. He decided to dress up as a woman and return to [Location 1], Freetown where he stayed until he left for Australia.
He claimed that if he returns to Sierra Leone, he fears serious harm from SLPP supporters in his community and the government. He claimed that one of his campaign team members, [Mr F], was killed on the night of the election runoff and his family were chased from their home.
He claims that the government and the authorities will not protect him because he campaigned against them. He claims that he cannot relocate to another area in Sierra Leone because the SLPP is currently in government and their supporters are causing the violence against APC supporters throughout the country.
He claims that he cannot get protection from the APC. He claims that the APC are silenced as they are not in power, and that the APC cannot protect themselves.
In the interview with the delegate on 29 May 2018 he discussed his claims for protection.
With respect to his occupation, he stated that after he finished his study, he worked for [Employer 1] as an [Occupation 1]. He resigned from this position in 2017 intending to return to study and was going to take the [University 1] entrance exam.
He stated his friends financially supported him until he came to Australia and that he did not have any other employment in Sierra Leone.
He claims that he applied for [a temporary] visa as a freelance journalist, not as a press photographer as he claimed in his [visa application]. He stated that he had not reported or written articles for [Event 1] and he did not attend [Event 1].
He claimed that he applied for the [temporary] visa as a freelance journalist as he was a part time freelance journalist and a youth activist for the [Village 1] Youth All People’s Congress (APC) party and that he sometimes wrote reports for the local APC.
He stated that he did not mention this in his protection visa application as he thought it was on his other application. He did not have any evidence that he was a freelance journalist as he left Sierra Leone in haste and did not bring any evidence with him.
He claims that when he was abducted by SLPP members on 26 February 2018, they took him to an unknown place and questioned him about the APC party campaign. He claims they slapped him a couple of times then let him go. He claims he did not require medical attention and did not report the matter to anyone. He told his APC party and they told him not to walk alone at night-time.
After the abduction in 2018, he was almost killed so he decided to go to [Country 1]. He claims he went to the bus station and attempted to get on a bus however he was stopped because he was identified as APC. APC supporters were not permitted to leave as there was concern about false ballot papers being transported and that he might bring those back into the country.
He stated that when he went to [Country 1], although he held a visa to travel to Australia, he was undecided about what he wanted to do with his future. He wanted to return to study however after he could not go to [Country 1], he realised he would have to go to Australia. He sold his [assets] to pay for his airfare.
He stated that he waited for more than a month to depart Sierra Leone as he was undecided. He claims he was in fear for his safety but got confused about the dates when he went to buy his ticket to Australia.
His representative’s outlined the applicant’s claims in his submissions of 1 June 2022. His representative stated the applicant completed high school in 2008/2009. He gained qualifications in [Discipline 1] and after the completion of a diploma course he found a casual position as a reporter journalist with [Employer 2].
In 2011 he became involved in politics by supporting the APC party. He campaigned for them in the 2012 elections and was active in the constituency of [Village 1], Freetown.
In 2012 he began to receive numerous threats on his life and that of his family. He was captured once and assaulted by kicking and slapping which resulted in a fractured skull and hospitalisation.
The applicant was attacked on numerous fronts by different groups of SLPP supporters.
In 2018 during the presidential election, he was taken hostage by several SLPP high-ranking members and interrogated for several hours, was beaten and released. One of his fellow members of the APC campaign team was killed on the night of the election.
He could not locate to another part of the country because he was known by name and face and the authorities could not guarantee his protection. His only option was to flee to another West African country but he did not have the right to enter and reside.
Prior to the hostage event the applicant had a visa to travel to Australia to participate in [Event 1] as a journalist/photographer. A colleague of the applicant persuaded the applicant to apply for the visa and he took the opportunity to travel to Australia
At the Tribunal hearings held on 2 June and 11 October 2022 the applicant gave evidence regarding his background and claims. At the end of the second hearing the Tribunal discussed relevant country information with the applicant.
The Tribunal refers to the following country information which give some context to the findings and reasons of the Tribunal.
Background
The Department of Foreign Affairs country summary on Sierra Leone[2] notes
Sierra Leone is a country in West Africa, bordering Guinea to the north, and Liberia to the southeast. It gained independence from Britain in 1961. Sierra Leone's long running civil war (1991 to 2002) killed an estimated 50,000 and displaced more than two million people out of a total population of six million.
At the end of 1999, the United Nations deployed the UN Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) to implement the Lomé Peace Accord which was intended to end the civil war. UNAMSIL completed its mandate in December 2005.
In March 2014, the closure of the UN Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Sierra Leone marked the end of more than 15 years of peacekeeping and political operations in Sierra Leone. Sierra Leone became a leading example of a peacekeeping success and a key contributor to other peace keeping missions.
Sierra Leone's major mineral exports are diamonds, titanium, bauxite and gold and it has large deposits of rutile. Despite the abundance of its natural resources, the majority of the population live below the poverty line.
[2] Countries, economies and regions Sierra Leone DFAT
The 2018 elections and the current political situation
The APC party is currently Sierra Leone’s main opposition party. Prior to general elections held in March 2018, the APC had held office since 2007. General elections were held on 7 March 2018, however, as neither the APC nor SLPP presidential candidate won enough seats to form government, a second round of voting was held on 31 March 2018. The SLPP’s Julius Maada Bio won.
In March 2018, the opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) candidate, Julius Maada Bio, won the presidential election in a second-round run-off. In the 2018 parliamentary election, the All People's Congress (APC) retained its majority in parliament. Following a High Court decision in May 2019 to remove ten APC members of parliament for allegedly violating electoral laws during the election campaign, and replace them with nine SLPP members, with the tenth to be chosen through a by election, the SLPP became the largest party in parliament. In March 2021, following a by-election, the SLPP held 59 seats in parliament and the APC 58 seats.
The US Department of State (USDOS) report on human rights practices in Sierra Leone for 2020 states that ‘Sierra Leone is a constitutional republic with a directly elected president and a unicameral legislature’[3]. The report continues:
In March 2018 the opposition Sierra Leone People’s Party [SLPP] candidate, Julius Maada Bio, w on the presidential elections. In January 2018 parliamentary elections, the All People’s Congress [APC] w on a plurality of the seats. After the December 12 election re-run and by-elections, the Sierra Leone People’s Party and the All People’s Congress each held 58 seats. Observers found these elections to be largely free and fair.
[3] 1 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2020 - Sierra Leone', US Department of State, 30 March 2021, Executive Summary, p.1,
The Bertelsmann Stiftung Transformation Index (BTI) 2020 country report on Sierra Leone[4] refers to general elections being ‘held in Sierra Leone in March 2018 to elect the president, parliament and local councils’. Julius Maada Bio of the SLPP won the presidency following a second round of voting, while the APC ‘took the majority of seats in the parliament’. The report indicates that ‘[t]he election was deemed “free and fair” by international observers, and violence between supporters of the two parties remained on a low level. The transition of power was overall smooth and formally strengthened democratic procedures’. The report also indicates, however, that in mobilising the electorate, ‘both parties resorted to exploiting existing ethno-regional divides within the country…As in the past, political mass support was generated by accentuating ethnicity rather than presenting competing political visions and programs. This resulted in the deepening of societal antagonisms and contravened the peace consolidation processes. The APC was ‘deeply rooted in the northern regions and in the Temne and Limba ethnic groups’, while ‘the SLPP remains more or less a Mende party based in the south eastern parts of the country’.
[4] BTI 2020 Country Report Sierra Leone', Bertelsmann Stiftung, 29 April 2020,
A July 2020 US Overseas Security Advisory Council crime and safety report on Sierra Leone states that ‘[p]olitical violence is sporadic and normally increases during election periods’. The report also states that ‘[p]olitical demonstrations and rallies are generally peaceful, but sporadic clashes do occur, often instigated by individuals within the crowds. Participants at political rallies are easily incited and may use weapons of opportunity, including sticks and rocks. Strong rivalries exist in Sierra Leone; participants at large demonstrations can become aggressive toward one another and the police. The police deploy crowd-control techniques, including the firing of warning shots and use of tear gas’[5].
[5] 33 'Sierra Leone 2020 Crime & Safety Report', Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), 4 July 2020,
On 10 August 2022, anti-government protesters in Sierra Leone clashed with police in the capital, Freetown. Aljazeera reported that six police officers were killed in the violence. The protests were reportedly over the rising cost of living, with demonstrators calling for the departure of President Bio. According to Aljazeera, ‘[l]ong-standing frustration with the government in some quarters has been exacerbated by rising prices for basic goods in the West African country, where more than half of its population of around eight million live below the poverty line, according to the World Bank’[6].
[6] ‘Sierra Leone imposes curfew amid anti-government protests’, Aljazeera, 10 August 2022,

An article dated 11 August 2022 in The Sierra Leone Telegraph indicates that ‘Sierra Leone’s main opposition political party – the APC, last night issued a statement condemning yesterday’s violent protests which saw the killing of civilians and security officers’. The main opposition APC was ‘being accused by supporters of the government and ruling SLPP party of orchestrating the nationwide protests’. The article also states that ‘[s]ince President Bio’s election to office in 2018, there has been a continuous rise in political tension and violence in the country, which many say is made worse by a highly politicised and unprofessional police force’[7].
[7] 20 ‘Opposition APC says it unreservedly condemn all forms of violence’, Thomas, A R, The Sierra Leone Telegraph, 11 August 2022,
Political violence
The BTI report states that ‘[o]rganized violence remained at a fairly low level during the review period [from 1 February 2017 to 31 January 2019], but the potential for mass violence remains high’. Antagonism between the APC and the SLPP had ‘led to violent clashes in the run-up to the general elections in March 2018. This was not unexpected. Despite an agreement to prevent violence between supporters of each party, signed by both parties in 2009, their radicalized youth organizations are prone to the use of violence’. An April 2018 article in The Economist refers to ‘[t]ensions based on ethnic, political and regional divisions’ simmering throughout the 2018 election campaign. When the result was announced, ‘[s]upporters of Mr Bio’s Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) attacked followers of the APC, which previously held the presidency. Much of the violence’ had ‘taken place in the SLPP’s southern strongholds. But more than 100 people’ had ‘also fled Kono, a volatile swing state in the east’[8].
[8] 20 'BTI 2020 Country Report Sierra Leone', Bertelsmann Stiftung, 29 April 2020, p.12 and 25
Corruption
The OSAC Country Security Report also notes that ‘[c]orruption [sic] present at all levels within the government and private sector. According to an Afrobarometer 2020 survey, Sierra Leoneans have perceived corruption to be increasing among the police, judiciary, and parliament since 2018’. In that survey, ‘46% of Sierra Leoneans reported paying bribes for public services (i.e., education, health care, identity documents, police services) in 2020, which is essentially unchanged from 2018 when 47% of Sierra Leoneans reported doing so’.[9]
[9] OSAC Country Security Report Sierra Leone, Overseas Security Advisory Council (OSAC), 19 November 2021, p.9,
The December 2020 DFAT thematic report on the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), which includes Sierra Leone as a member state, states that ‘corruption is highly prevalent across the ECOWAS region and can manifest in relation to obtaining all forms of identification document’. DFAT assessed that ‘systems of government administration lack adequate financial, human and material resources and capacity to ensure document integrity and prevent corruption. DFAT assesses that, although degrees of severity vary across ECOWAS member states, generalised corruption is common and documentation is commonly and easily obtained with little to no assessment of entitlement. DFAT notes Guinea is reported to be the most extreme case in this regard. DFAT also assesses there is a well-established history of individuals across ECOWAS using fraudulent (counterfeit or altered) documents and fraudulently obtained genuine documents to obtain visas’.[10]
[10] DFAT Thematic Report - Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 3 December 2020
Social Media as a source of country information
At the end of the second hearing the applicant’s representative made submissions on the country information discussed with the applicant. He claimed that official news or country sources often did not accurately report what was happening on the ground in Sierra Leone and that Facebook, Instagram and other social media sites provided more accurate information. The Tribunal does not accept this submission and considers that sources of reliable country information are not found in social media which is not verified by other reliable fact checking sources.
A study undertaken in association with the Centre for Democracy and Development[11] found the following
In January 2020 internet penetration in Sierra Leone was 25% and there were an estimated 700,000 active social media users, with Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp the most used applications. These new media platforms act as both sources and enablers of fake news. The internet has also influenced news gathering and content production in the sense that some media institutions now directly copy and paste contents from the internet and other online media sources, bringing them into the traditional media realm.
[11] Sierra Leone’s Fake News Ecosystem An overview 8 February 2022
The findings of the study
“show that the major area fake news spreads in the country’s information ecosystem is around politics. The country is broadly divided along ethno-political lines with supporters of the two leading political parties, the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) and the All Peoples Congress (APC), fervent in their belief in messages that originate from their party leaders and supporters”.
….
What is also clear is that growing internet connectivity has increased the spread of misinformation and disinformation in several ways. The first is that it has created new media platforms which can also act as sources of fake news. But more importantly, the internet has also influenced news gathering and content production. Some media institutions directly copy and paste contents from the internet and other online media source, bringing them in to the traditional media realm. Social media rumours also penetrate offline information networks that historically have been, and still are, key enablers of the circulation of information in the country. The study concludes by arguing that fake news is a growing and serious problem that needs to be addressed in Sierra Leone.
Findings and reasons
What was the applicant’s occupation?
The applicant told the Tribunal he had [Discipline 1] qualifications and was working with an [Industry 1] company called [Employer 1] which was in the business of [specified services]. He worked for [Employer 1] from 2016 until 2018 just before he came to Australia. He obtained a visa [to attend Event 1].
He claimed also worked with [Employer 2] on a casual basis from time to time. He stated that when Ebola crisis started in 2014 he sent his resume to the [employer] and was accepted. He did some data collection and took pictures relating to the Ebola crisis. Later he was called to [undertake other specified work].
At the first hearing he stated he was a casual employee and only worked for them from time to time. In the later hearing he stated he had been a volunteer with [Employer 2].
Since he had worked for [Employer 2] he was called again to assist in [Event 1]. He claimed he went to [the Australian City 1] and registered for [Event 1] and [undertook specified work]. He claimed he took photos and wrote articles for [Employer 2]. In the second hearing he stated he was granted a visa to come to [Event 1] at [City 1]. He registered and stayed at a hotel near [Event 1] venue but could not remember the name of the hotel. He thought he was there for a week or two. He stated [Mr G] was the publicity manager for [Employer 2] and he organised everything. His publicity team would write articles and [Mr G] would edit those articles and send them back to Sierra Leone. The applicant claimed he wrote articles about [Event 1] which were published in Sierra Leone but he had no copies of any articles he had written and could not provide them.
He claimed he had previously done some work for [Employer 2] and had written about 20 articles. He claimed he first became involved during the Ebola crisis as a volunteer. He claimed he went around talking to people about safety measures.
The Tribunal put it to him that [Employer 2] had an online publication, and it would be relatively easy for him to obtain copies of articles he had written. He stated he was not sure when they were published and had not tried to get a copy.. The Tribunal put it to him he had applied for protection in 2018 and would have had plenty of time to seek that evidence before the Tribunal hearing. His role as journalist with [Employer 2] had been an issue for the delegate The applicant did not give a satisfactory answer as to why he had not obtained a copy or copies of articles and stated his things were in Sierra Leone and he had not reached out to anyone to get copies.
He claimed that all the equipment used for [Event 1] was held by [Mr G] and when [Event 1] finished, they took everything home. He claimed that he handwrote his articles and [Mr G] organised the typing. The applicant claimed he wrote about [specified] events and took photos of [other events]. The cameras were taken home at the end of [Event 1]. The applicant stated he had applied for the visa in Sierra Leone. He filled in an application form and gave his details and then submitted the application.
The Tribunal put it to him that when he spoke to the delegate he told the delegate that he had not gone to [City 1], had not gone to [Event 1] and had not made any reports on [Event 1]. He stated he had gone to [Event 1] and did not understand why the delegate had stated that. The Tribunal has listened to the interview recording and the answers given by the applicant were somewhat ambivalent. He stated he had obtained a visa for [Event 1] on the basis of being a journalist not a press photographer and agreed he was not a press photographer. He did tell the delegate that he had not gone to [Event 1] but he told the Tribunal he did go to [Event 1]. The Tribunal considers there is little utility in considering this matter any further as it not material to the applicant’s claims. It may go to the applicant’s credibility but even if the Tribunal found that his evidence was not credible on this issue the Tribunal must still consider the applicant’s protection claims and the means by which he came to Australia, legitimate or not, are not necessarily relevant.
In any event, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was a casual journalist working for the [Employer 2] publication before he left Sierra Leone. It finds that the applicant was working in an [Industry 1] company before he left Sierra Leone. He has qualifications in [Discipline 1] and does not have any relevant qualifications or experience as a journalist. Further he also stated initially that he was a casual employee but later stated he was a volunteer for [Employer 2]. Despite making his application for protection and attending an interview with the delegate in 2018 he has not, since then, provided any articles or other information which might support his evidence he was a casual journalist for [Employer 2]. The Tribunal considers this indicates that no such evidence exists because he did not work as a journalist.
It is clear that the applicant obtained a visa to travel to [Event 1] on the basis he was a press photographer or journalist, however, the Tribunal does not accept that he did any work in such a role during [Event 1]. It considers his application for a [temporary] visa was facilitated by the provision of inaccurate information. This finding is supporting by country information which indicates that there is a high level of corruption in obtaining all manner of documents in Sierra Leone.
Was the applicant attacked and injured in 2012? Was the attack related to his support for the APC?
The applicant stated that in 2012 he had influence with youth in his area due to his personality and his connections. He became involved with the APC through volunteering work and working with youth. He mobilised members of the community, by organising cleaning and involvement in the church choir. It was a small community and he spent time sitting and talking with people. He spoke against bad politicians.
The APC candidate for his area called him in 2012 and told him that it was his intention to arrange scholarships and encourage youth to return to school. He started working organising meetings and meeting youth. This got him into the APC and he was able to work with youth and talk to them about the benefits of education. He persuaded friends and other people in the community to support the APC.
The APC candidate for his area won his seat in 2012 but he does not know what he is doing now after he lost in the 2018 elections. The Tribunal put it to him that even though SLPP won in 2018 they had almost the same number of seats in the legislature as the APC. He stated the SLPP won a majority, but he did not appear to know much else about the results.
The applicant gave evidence in the first hearing that on 15 November 2012 that SLPP supporters were at a large election rally and when the rally ended some SLPP supporters came to his house. He answered the door to a large group of people. When he opened the door, he was beaten unconscious and recalls waking up in hospital where his head was being examined. He claimed that when the APC won the election in 2012, the attackers were charged.
At the second hearing he claimed that in November 2012 the SLPP held a rally on the last day before the election. He was at home with his grandfather and there was a knocking on the door and he came out to see who was outside. There were words and people started punching him. When he woke up he was in the hospital. When asked why he was attacked he claimed they had seen him walking around with the other colour (the APC and SLPP adopted different colours) and he was encouraging youth to think positively about the APC. In their area people were mainly engaged with fishing and going to sea and the APC was trying to bring people back to education. He claimed it was because of his personality and youth activities. He was able to influence his colleagues and youth to support the APC.
The SLPP supporters were upset he was talking on behalf of the APC and wanted him to help the SLPP. When he supported the APC they were critical of him and tarnished his name. This is why he believes he was attacked.
The applicant provided photographs and medical documents relating to the injuries he sustained in 2012. He provided an admission document for 16 November 2012 in a hospital in [Village 1] which showed he had a depressed skull and laceration. The document stated he was a student and was discharged on 20 November 2012. The medical notes indicated he was injured in a fight.
He provided another medical report dated 12 December 2012 from a different hospital, that is, [Hospital 1] Freetown, where he was seen and admitted on 23 November 2012 and diagnosed with a skull fracture after an alleged assault and was prescribed medication and continued monitoring of his condition. His discharge summary from this hospital showed he had a depressed skull fracture and was discharged on 29 November 2012. The applicant also provided a police request for a medical examination of the applicant as a result of an alleged assault by named persons and a response from medical staff at the [Hospital 1] which was consistent with the discharge summary referred to above.
At the second Tribunal hearing the applicant stated that he was in hospital for 2 months before was discharged but this is not consistent with the medical documents provided. It may be that the applicant had continuing medical treatment for 2 months by way of consultations and treatment or he may have been exaggerating his condition. However, the Tribunal does accept that a skull fracture is a significant injury and that it would have taken some time to recover from this injury.
The Tribunal accepts that in November 2012 the applicant was assaulted in a fight and sustained a depressed skull fracture and lacerations. The applicant claims that his attackers were SLPP supporters, and they attacked him for reasons of his support for the APC. There is no other evidence to support this claim, but the Tribunal accepts it could possibly be true. The country information indicates that during election campaigns there is a certain amount of violence occurring between supporters of the two main political parties, that is, the APC and the SLPP.
Did the applicant continue to support the APC? Was he involved in APC activities between 2012 and 2018?
The applicant claims that he is an APC supporter and while the Tribunal accepts that he supported the APC in 2012 it does not accept that he has been engaged in any party activities between 2012 and 2018 or that he has been an activist.
In his statement he claimed that while the APC was still in power, he continued his involvement with them. He arranged community meetings, meetings in cafes and in his home with youth. He stated he was not harmed during this time.
He did not give any oral evidence about his claimed activities and has not provided any other evidence relating to more recent APC activities. He appeared to know little about the election results from 2018 when this was put to him at hearing.
Was the applicant threatened or taken hostage by SLPP supporters in February 2018 during the election campaign for the 2018 elections?
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was threatened, taken hostage, questioned and assaulted by SLPP supporters in February 2018. It does not accept he tried to flee to [Country 1] and does not accept he returned to [Location 1] and stayed there for three to four weeks before boarding a flight to Australia for [Event 1].
He stated that during the election campaign in 2018 SLPP supporters were making threats against him saying that the APC time of ruling is over, and they will deal with him.
In the first hearing he claimed that on 26 February 2018 he was on his way to a meeting, and they took him away, questioned him and assaulted him.

100. In the second hearing he stated that during the 2018 election campaign he had an APC meeting he was supposed to attend. He was stopped on the main road by a few SLPP supporters who knew him. He claimed they put something over his face and took him to a building. They were slapping him and telling him he should not go to the meeting and he should join the SLPP. When asked where he was taken, he stated he could not recognise his surroundings. The attackers stood around him and told him not to go to the APC meeting. After he was released, he went home, told his mother what happened and claimed he reported the incident to police the next day but police did not follow up.
101. The applicant’s evidence on the claimed incident was vague and generalised. The Tribunal considers the applicant did not provide the level of plausible detail which a person who had experienced this conduct would have been able to recall. The Tribunal recognises that sometimes the details of traumatic events are not always easily recalled, however, the Tribunal formed the view that the applicant had not experienced the incident as claimed. The applicant did not explain how he was able to make his way home if he did not know where he was being held or whether he had any injuries. When asked if he had reported the incident to police he claimed that he and his mother had reported the incident but the police did nothing. However, when contrasted with the police response to the 2012 assault, the Tribunal considers the lack of any other evidence or at least an account of what had occurred when they made the complaint indicates that the incident did not take place as claimed.
102. He claimed that after he was detained he stayed at home but did not feel safe so decided to flee to [Country 1]. He claimed he could not get to [Country 1] due to the roads being blocked so he travelled to [Location 1] and stayed there for three to four weeks until he came to Australia.

103. The Tribunal put it to him that the delegate had asked him about whether he could move to another West African state pursuant to the ECOWAS treaty. He stated he had tried to escape to [Country 1], but the road was blocked and people were looking for him.
104. When asked to explain he claimed the SLPP, and military people blocked the road to [Country 1] and they would be picking people up. He claimed the people blocking people from travelling out of the country were bad people and because of the 2012 incident he would be identified and not be able to move. He claimed they blocked the road for their own personal satisfaction to stop people travelling out of the country. Because of the 2012 issue and his affiliation with the APC he could not leave. The Tribunal put it to him that half the population supported the APC. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that there was no country information that the borders were closed. The applicant’s representative submitted that due to regular unrest in [Country 1] the borders were blocked from time to time.
105. He claimed he had been in the spotlight talking to people and speaking at rallies in support of the APC. The Tribunal put it to him he was not a high-profile APC activist, but he disagreed.
106. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant tried to flee to [Country 1]. The evidence he gave was extremely vague and indirect. He did not provide an account of events which set out the steps he took to leave Freetown or what he experienced during that journey. He did not identify places he went, people he met, conversations he had or what he had observed on the claimed journey. He was not able to indicate what he intended to do when he got to [Country 1]. His account was so incomplete that the Tribunal does not accept it.
107. The Tribunal does not accept he decided to return to Sierra Leone and disguised himself in a woman’s wrap and went to [Location 1] before he left for Australia. He stated [Location 1] was near the airport and he stayed there for three to four weeks before he left for Australia.
108. When asked to explain how he had travelled to [Location 1] and lived there for three to four weeks he stated he did not go home. He tied his head and covered himself in a ladies dress he bought at [the] markets to disguise himself and he caught the ferry to [Location 1]. When he was asked where he stayed for three to four weeks the Tribunal found his answer to be largely incoherent. He claimed he stayed “in between” and waited a night to find somewhere to rest but could not remember any details.
109. After four weeks he arrived at the airport for a flight to Australia. The Tribunal asked him how he knew when and where his flight left, whether he had his travel documents and whether he had a bag packed. He claimed he was communicating with [Mr G] and had a bag packed; [Mr G] had everything else. He thinks he left Sierra Leone [in] March 2018. The Tribunal considers if he had a bag packed and his travel documents were with [Mr G] this suggests that he was aware that he was leaving for Australia in March 2018 and this is not consistent with his evidence that he tried to flee to [Country 1] and then went straight to [Location 1] where he stayed for three to four week in unidentified places. This evidence makes no rational sense.
ECOWAS treaty and third country protection.
110. The Tribunal raised the issue of the free movement through West African states and whether he could move to another West African state through the ECOWAS treaty. He claimed he had not thought about this issue. He was just thinking about his life.
111. The Tribunal considers that there is insufficient information to determine whether the applicant has a right to enter and reside in a country apart from Australia pursuant to s.36(3) of the Act. For the purposes of this decision, it is not satisfied that the applicant could enter and reside in any of the ECOWAS treaty countries.
Does the applicant meet the refugee criterion?
112. Taking into account the findings set out above and the country information referred to in this decision, and having considered the claims singularly and on a cumulative basis, the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant returns to Sierra Leone now or in the foreseeable future he faces a real chance of persecution for reasons of his actual or imputed support for the APC.
113. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim that he did not return to Sierra Leone from Australia in 2018 because he was afraid of being attacked again because of his previous association with the APC.
114. As the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was detained, held hostage or assaulted in February 2018 by SLPP supporters it does not accept SLPP supporters threatened to kill him and does not accept that they would harm him if he returned now or in the foreseeable future.
115. The Tribunal accepts he was assaulted and injured in 2012, but as put to the applicant, this incident took place six years before he left Sierra Leone and over 10 years ago. The assault took place in the context of an election campaign. The evidence indicates, and the Tribunal finds, that after the attack in 2012 nothing further happened to the applicant before he departed Sierra Leone in March 2018. He claimed that nothing further happened to him between 2012 and 2018 because the APC was in power during those years. This may be so, but there is no information which suggests that he would be a target for SLPP supporters if he returned to Sierra Leone now or in the foreseeable future. He has been away for many years and has not had any involvement in the APC or any political conflicts while in Australia. In any event, the country information indicates that while there are a number of violent incidents between elections the main political violence takes place in the context of an election campaign. There is no evidence which suggests that the applicant will become active in an election campaign.
116. The applicant obtained a visa for Australia on 14 February 2018 and did not depart Sierra Leone [until] March 2018. He explained that he had to wait to travel with [Event 1] team and officials and the Tribunal accepts this evidence. The Tribunal considers that the applicant was not associated with [Event 1] as an [Occupation 4], official or supporter and had obtained his Australian visa by other means. Nevertheless, he would still have had to comply with the requirements of the Department and sponsoring body to enable him to gain entry on his [temporary] visa. If he had travelled earlier without an adequate reason, he may have been denied entry. It finds the delay of little significance in assessing the applicant’s claims.
117. There is no evidence before the Tribunal which suggests that as a failed asylum seeker the applicant would be at risk of harm if he returned to Sierra Leone now or in the foreseeable future.
118. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons set out in section 5J(1)(a) of the Act.
Does the applicant meet the complementary protection criterion?
119. Having found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion, the Tribunal has considered whether on the evidence before it, there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Sierra Leone.
120. The applicant is a [age] year old man of Creole ethnicity. The Tribunal accepts he was assaulted and suffered an injury in 2012 but does not accept that he has been seriously harmed since that incident. It does not accept that he is an APC activist and considers he may support the APC but has not actively taken part in APC activities since 2012.
121. There is no evidence or country information which might suggest he would be at risk of serious harm for any other reason if he returned to Sierra Leone.
122. Having considered the applicant’s circumstances singularly and on a cumulative basis, and for all the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Sierra Leone that there is a real risk he will be arbitrarily deprived of his life or suffer the death penalty, or subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment.
Conclusion
123. 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 criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION

126. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Louise Nicholls
Senior Member

ATTACHMENT
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 (Cth) (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 expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
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.
…

[2023] AATA 3217

27 June 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction