1818768 (Refugee)

1818768 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 3734 (18 August 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Kristie Mellor
CASE NUMBER:  1818768
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Ghana
MEMBER:L. Symons
DATE:18 August 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 18 August 2023 at 5:18pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Ghana – homosexuality – assessment of claims – credibility concerns – inconsistencies in evidence – delay in applying for protection – claims not accepted – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65, 424AA
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 7 June 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Ghana, arrived in Australia [in] March 2018 as the holder of a [temporary] visa that was valid until 15 May 2018.
On 8 May 2018, the applicant applied to the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) for a Protection visa. On 9 May 2018, he was granted an associated Bridging A visa. On 7 June 2018, the Department refused to grant him the Protection visa on the basis that he is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. On 27 June 2018, he applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.
On 30 September 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and invited him to appear before the Tribunal on 30 November 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. On 7 October 2022, the Tribunal received a Response to Hearing Invitation in which the applicant requested an Akan interpreter for the hearing. On 21 November 2022, the Tribunal received an email from the applicant’s legal representative indicating that the applicant would prefer to proceed with the hearing without an interpreter.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 30 November 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was conducted as a joint hearing with the application of [Mr A] with the consent of both applicants. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Mr A], [Ms B] and [Mr C].
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his legal representative, Ms Kristie Mellor, who attended the hearing. The hearing was adjourned to 22 December 2022 at 9.00am.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 22 December 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Mr A].
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his legal representative, Ms Kristie Mellor, who attended the hearing.
The issues that arise on review are whether the applicant is owed Australia’s protection under the refugee criterion or under the complementary protection criterion.
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.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
The applicant’s claims in his application for a Protection visa and Statement of Claims are summarised as follows:
·He was born on [date] at Accra in Ghana and is a citizen of Ghana.
·He had his first homosexual encounter in his first year of tertiary education at [Education Provider 1] after a homosexual friend lured him and introduced him to homosexuality. He then started “this practice and became gay”. They kept their relationship secret and parted ways after completing their studies.
·He thereafter remained reserved but always managed to search for a companion in certain areas. He did this in secret as being homosexual is an abomination in Ghana.
·In 2009, he gave in to familial pressure, got married and had [number] children. He used his marriage to conceal his homosexuality. He was not comfortable with this relationship and went out for entertainment.
·He met his current partner, [Mr A], in 2016. They met at a disco in [Neighbourhood 1]. [Mr A] approached him and they talked. He found him to be compatible so they began a relationship and started dating in secret.
·His family are devoted Christians and their religion and community forbids homosexuality in Ghana. He feared that he would be prosecuted by the Police if it was discovered that he is homosexual.
·His wife became suspicious of his relationship with [Mr A] because his sexual behaviour toward her changed and she often saw him with [Mr A]. She confronted him about it but he denied it because of his fear for his life. His relationship with [Mr A] became known after the news broke out at [Mr A]’s house. [Mr A] decided to leave Ghana and Australia became the destination of choice. He had previously applied for a visa to travel to Australia in 2012 and when they heard about [an opportunity] in Australia (in 2018) they decided to come here and seek protection.
·His family harassed and mistreated him after they found out that he was homosexual. They threatened to harm him if he continued his “gay practice” because he disgraced his family.
·He fears mob violence in Ghana because rumours of one being homosexual will prompt a group of people to attack the victim. It is useless to go to the authorities who will not protect him.
·He faced the risk of serious harm, harassment and mistreatment while in Ghana. His life was in danger because of his “homosexual practice” which society considers to be an evil practice.
·He and [Mr A] were harassed and beaten when returning from a club by “some guys” who suspected that they were homosexuals.
·He did not seek help in Ghana after he was beaten, harassed and threatened by the community and his family. He did not report it to the Police as there is no law in Ghana to protect LGBT persons. LGBT practices are taboo in Ghana and many LGBT people are beaten.
·He did not seek to relocate within Ghana as “LGBT practice” is not acceptable in any part of Ghana. He will not be safe in any part of the country. His family will know if he returns to Ghana and will search for him.
·He fears that if he returns to Ghana and if his true sexuality is discovered his life will be a total disaster. His family are devoted Christians, will not forgive him for being homosexual and will want him dead because he will be seen as an embarrassment or a disgrace to the family.
·He fears that if he returns to Ghana, he will not be able to live openly as a homosexual. He will be harassed, beaten, discriminated against and killed by the community and his family because of his membership of the particular social group “LGBT”. The Ghanaian authorities will not protect him.
The applicant provided the Department with copies of his Ghanaian passport issued [in] 2017, a character reference from [Ms B] dated 16 May 2018, an undated email message addressed to [Mr A] and media articles relating to homosexuality in Ghana dated 27 November 2017, 28 November 2017, 31 March 2018, 20 April 2018, 28 April 2018, 3 May 2018 and 6 May 2018.
The applicant attended an interview with the Department on 24 May 2018. During that interview, he reiterated and expanded on his written claims. The delegate found that his claims were not credible and was not satisfied that he is a person in respect of whom Australia has any protection obligations. His application for a Protection visa was refused on 7 June 2018.
The applicant filed with the Tribunal an undated and unsigned Statement from him and sixty one photographs.
On 16 January 2023, the Tribunal received a post hearing submission from the applicant’s legal representative.
Receiving country
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Ghana and provided copies of his Ghanaian passport to the Department and the Tribunal. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that he is a citizen of Ghana. The Tribunal finds that Ghana is the receiving country for the purposes of assessing his claims for protection under the refuge criterion and the complementary protection criterion.
Third country protection
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is outside his country of nationality. The Tribunal notes that Ghana is a member of the Economic Community of Western African States. However, in view of the Tribunal’s findings in relation to credibility, the Tribunal will not consider the assessment under s.36(3) of the Act any further.
Assessment of claims
The applicant gave evidence that his application for a Protection visa was prepared by his partner ([Mr A]) based on his instructions which were true and correct. He prepared the Statement of Claims attached to his application for a Protection visa himself. The information in his Statement of Claims is true and correct. He is satisfied that his application for a Protection visa and his Statement of Claims are accurate and complete. His written Statement filed with the Tribunal on 23 November 2022, was prepared by his lawyer on his instructions which were true and correct. When asked whether there had been any changes in his circumstances since he filed his application for a Protection visa, he responded no.
During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his background, his family, his education, his employment, his religion, where he lived in Ghana, his travel to other countries, why he left Ghana, his travel to Australia and why he fears returning to Ghana. The Tribunal found aspects of his evidence to be evasive, vague, implausible and unconvincing. There were many inconsistencies within his evidence and between his evidence and [Mr A]’s evidence. His conduct was not consistent with his claims. The Tribunal finds that he is not a reliable or credible witness for the following reasons:
First, in his Statement of Claims, the applicant claimed that his first homosexual encounter was with a student in his first year at [Education Provider 1]. He claimed that he had a relationship with this student until the two of them completed their studies and then ended the relationship. He stated in his visa application that he attended [Education Provider 1] from January 1995 to June 1998.
The applicant attended an interview with an officer from the Department on 24 May 2018. During that interview, he stated that his first homosexual relationship was at the age of [age] years with a man named [Mr D] while completing his [apprenticeship]. He stated that he had a friend at [Education Provider 1] who was homosexual. His friend’s name was [Mr E].
During the hearing, the applicant initially gave evidence that he first realised that he preferred males to females in 2005 when he had a homosexual relationship with a man named [Mr D]. He then changed his evidence and said his first homosexual relationship was with a friend and fellow student when he was at [Education Provider 1]. His name was [Mr F].
The Tribunal put this information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that these inconsistencies in his evidence raised issues about his claims to be homosexual and the credibility of his associated claims. He responded that his first friend who introduced him to homosexuality was called [Mr D]. The friend he met at [Education Provider 1] was called [Mr F]. His response does not address the issue raised with him or alleviate the Tribunal’s concerns.
Second, in his Statement of Claims, the applicant claimed that in 2009 his family pressured him into marriage and he then had [number] children. He first met [Mr A] in 2016. During his interview with the Department on 24 May 2018 he gave a second version of events. He stated that he married his wife, [Ms G], partly because he was in a relationship with [Mr A] and wanted to deflect attention away from his relationship with him. He first commenced a relationship with his wife in 2005, separated and then got back together in 2009. His wife then got pregnant and in Ghana it is the tradition to serve drinks to the family so they know he was the person who impregnated her. He entered into a customary marriage with her in 2009. He lived with her until February 2017.
During the hearing, the applicant gave a third version of events. He stated that he met his wife at a funeral in 2005. They became friends. In 2007, they had a customary marriage and had children. He then had a period of courtship between 2007 and 2009.
The Tribunal put this information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that his evidence may lead the Tribunal to the conclusion that he got married because his wife got pregnant. The Tribunal noted that it may also come to the conclusion that his marriage had nothing to do with him being homosexual or his relationship with [Mr A]. The Tribunal also noted that the inconsistencies in his evidence may lead it to the conclusion that he is not a credible witness and raise issues about the credibility of his claims.
The applicant responded that his marriage to his wife was not a legal marriage. It was a customary marriage. They have [number] children. They separated in 2009. Although he said he lived with her until 2017, he did not live with her until 2017. They separated in 2011.
The applicant’s response does not address the issues raised with him or alleviate the Tribunal’s concerns. On the contrary, it exacerbates the Tribunal’s concerns for a number of reasons. Firstly, his evidence to the Tribunal was that he prepared his Statement of Claims and that the information in his Statement of Claims is correct. In his Statement of Claims, he stated that he got married in 2009. However, in his evidence to the Tribunal, he stated that he got married in 2007 but did not start living with his wife until 2009.
Secondly, in his application for Protection visa, which the applicant stated was prepared by [Mr A] on his instructions, he stated that he commenced a de facto relationship with his wife on 1 March 2005 and did not provide a date of separation. This tends to indicate that he has not separated from his wife. Thirdly, his evidence that he separated in 2011 is not consistent with his earlier evidence to the Tribunal that he separated in 2017. However, he told the Tribunal that he lived with his wife and children until he left Ghana to travel to Australia in March 2018. Fourthly, his evidence to the Tribunal was that he first met [Mr A] in 2016. Therefore, he could not have entered into a de facto relationship with his wife in 2005 or, alternatively, got married to his wife in 2007, or alternatively, start living with his wife in 2009 partly because he was in a relationship with [Mr A] and wanted to deflect attention away from his relationship with him.
These inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence raise concerns in relation to the applicant’s credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Third, there are inconsistencies within the applicant’s evidence and between his evidence and [Mr A]’s evidence in relation to how they met, how they discovered the other was homosexual and how their relationship developed. In his Statement of Claims, the applicant claimed that he met his current partner, [Mr A], in 2016. They met at a disco in [Neighbourhood 1]. [Mr A] approached him and they talked. He found him to be compatible so they began a relationship and started dating in secret.
During the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he first met [Mr A] in 2016 at a disco club in [Neighbourhood 1]. He was at the club when [Mr A] came in and sat at the far end of the room. He made a sign to [Mr A] using his fingers which is a sign in Ghana when a person is homosexual. [Mr A] did not respond so he made the sign again. [Mr A] then walked over to him and he gave him a chair beside him. The two of them had a conversation and realised they were compatible. [Mr A] introduced him to his wife and his family as a friend. He visited his house and the two of them would go out together.
During his interview with the Department on 21 May 2018, [Mr A] stated that he met the applicant on 7 March 2016 at the [named] Club near the barracks. He stated that in Ghana if someone meets another person who is homosexual, they are meant to tap the person and that person is meant to push their hand away. [Mr A] said he did this to the applicant and he did not show a negative reaction. In his Statement of Claims, [Mr A] stated that from that night they became friends and then gradually their friendship blossomed into a relationship. Each of them introduced the other to their respective wives and extended family.

During the hearing, [Mr A] gave another version of events. He stated that he first met the applicant in 2016 at a Club in [Neighbourhood 1]. He shook hands with the applicant and used his finger to scratch his palm and he responded. This is a signal in Ghana when a person is homosexual and that is how he realised that the applicant is also homosexual. The two of them commenced a relationship straight away. He introduced him to his wife as a friend.
The Tribunal put this information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that the inconsistencies between his evidence and [Mr A]’s evidence and the inconsistencies within [Mr A]’s evidence in relation to how they found out that the other was homosexual and how their relationship developed raise issues in relation to the credibility of his claims that he is homosexual.
The applicant responded that on the first day they met he made a sign to [Mr A], he came over and scratched his palm. He realised he is a homosexual. The relationship began from then. The friendship began from there.
The Tribunal does not find the applicant’s response to be convincing and it does not alleviate the Tribunal’s concerns. The inconsistencies in the evidence raise issues in relation to the applicant’s credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Fourth, In his Statement of Claims, the applicant claimed that his relationship with [Mr A] became known after the news broke out at [Mr A]’s house. However, during his interview with the Department, he gave a different version of this event. He stated that after he and [Mr A] were assaulted at a bar in February 2017, he returned home to his wife. [Mr A]’s wife, [Ms H], then located his whereabouts, went to his home and told his wife about his relationship with her husband. He and his wife separated in February 2017 after she found out that he was homosexual.
During the hearing, the applicant gave a third version of this incident. He gave evidence that [Mr A] bought some chocolates for his wife on 14 February 2017, Valentine’s Day, and he went with him to his house. He then wanted to pick up something from his house and went to his house with [Mr A]. [Mr A]’s wife suspected that something was going on and asked where they were going. She then followed the two of them. She went to his house and told his wife that something was going on between him and [Mr A]. His wife was suspicious of him because his relationship with her was not good and the two of them had not had sexual intercourse for a long time. She asked him if it was true, he denied it and said it was not true. He then continued to live with her.
The Tribunal put this information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that the inconsistencies in his evidence raise issues in relation to his credibility and the veracity of these claims.
The applicant responded that on 14 February 2017 [Mr A] bought his wife, [Ms H], chocolates and presented them to her. He went with him. [Ms H] suspected that something was going on between them. She went to his place and told his wife that something was going on. By then, he and his wife had not had sex for a long time. She did not understand what was going on as he was not having an affair or having sex with her. His wife asked him in the evening and he denied it. He said there was no relationship between him and [Mr A].
The Tribunal does not find the explanation given by the applicant to be convincing and it does not alleviate the Tribunal’s concerns. These issues raise further concerns in relation to the applicant’s credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Fifth, in his Statement of Claims, the applicant claimed that he and [Mr A] were harassed and beaten when returning from a club by “some guys” who suspected that they were homosexuals. He claimed that he fears mob violence in Ghana because rumours of one being homosexual will prompt a group of people to attack the victim. It is useless to go to the authorities who will not protect him.
During his interview with the Department on 24 May 2018, the applicant gave a different version of this incident. He stated that he and [Mr A] were at a bar in February 2017. He was under the influence of alcohol and kissed [Mr A] at the bar. When he went to the toilet he was challenged and assaulted by another person there. [Mr A] and others then joined the fight. At that moment, [Mr A]’s wife, [Ms H], arrived and publicly disclosed that the two of them were a homosexual couple.
During the hearing, the applicant gave a third version of this incident. He stated that he and [Mr A] went to a club as partners. As he was going to the toilet, he gave [Mr A] a kiss. Two or three guys there attacked them and beat them. [Mr A] has a mark on his hand. They found a way to escape. The Tribunal asked him why he kissed [Mr A] in a public place if the situation in Ghana in relation to homosexuality is as bad as he claims. He responded that he had been drinking, was in the mood and gave him a kiss. He did not know people were looking at them. When the Tribunal pointed out that it was a club, a public place with other people, he responded that it was a small club with not many people around.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether either he or [Mr A] were injured, he responded that [Mr A] defended him and has a mark on his hand. When asked whether [Mr A] sought medical treatment, he responded no. He had a light wound on his hand (pointing to his lower arm). When asked whether this incident was reported to the Police, he responded no.
In his Statement of Claims, [Mr A] gave evidence that he and the applicant were beaten by “some guys” who suspected that they were homosexual when they were returning from a club. However, during his interview with the Department, he gave a different version of this incident. He stated that the two of them went out on 1 May 2017. Some guys approached the two of them because they were in a “compromised position” and one of them slapped the applicant. He then pushed the man to the side and got a cut on his forearm. The man had a stone and he lost a toenail. During the hearing, [Mr A] gave evidence that he sought medical treatment for the injury to his arm.
The Tribunal put this information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that the inconsistencies within his evidence and the inconsistencies between his evidence and [Mr A]’s evidence raise issues in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
The applicant responded that they were at a bar and he had been drinking. On his way to the toilet, he kissed [Mr A]. There were some guys who saw him kissing [Mr A]. They met him on his way to the toilet and harassed him. [Mr A] came in to defend him and got a cut on his arm.
The applicant’s response does not address the issue raised with him or alleviate the Tribunal’s concerns. The inconsistencies in the evidence raise issues in relation to the applicant’s credibility and the veracity of his claims and [Mr A]’s credibility.
Sixth, during his interview with the Department, the applicant stated that he and his wife separated in February 2017 after she found out that he was homosexual. In his application for a Protection visa, he did not indicate that he had separated from his wife.
During the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that prior to his departure from Ghana in March 2018 he lived with his wife and children at [Neighbourhood 2] in Accra and lived there for 6 years. He later gave evidence that his wife found out that he was homosexual on 14 February 2017. His sexual relationship with her had broken down a long time before that. The two of them had not had sexual intercourse for a long time prior to 14 February 2017. When asked if anything happened between him and his wife between 14 February 2017 and him coming to Australia in March 2018, he responded that their relationship was bad. He was not interested in her and did not like her anymore. He was only there because of his children. He did not have sexual intercourse with her for a long time.
The applicant’s evidence in his application for a Protection visa, which he stated was accurate, is that his youngest daughter was born on [date]. That is more than [number] months after he claims that he and his wife separated on 14 February 2017.
The Tribunal raised these issues with the applicant and noted that this may lead it to the conclusion that he and his wife did not separate in February 2017 and may still be in a marital relationship.
The applicant responded that he and his wife are no more. In his culture, the man has to pay the rent because of his children. His wife could not look after the children. When he went to the house, it was because of his children. He is not with his wife anymore. They separated before he came to Australia. Their separation did not mean that he could not see her. They were friends but not in a relationship anymore. Nothing was going on between them. They were not enemies because of the children. He still pays the rent because of the children. He does not have anything to do with her anymore.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain how his wife got pregnant with his ([number]) child in those circumstances. He responded that the pregnancy was accidental. His interest was in [Mr A]. Women can easily influence men. She wanted to come back but he did not give her the chance. Because of the children, he always says hello to her. He could not give the children money so he gave it to her. He met her once and it led to her getting pregnant. It was not something he meant to do. He did not mean to stay with her and have the last baby with her.
The applicant’s response does not address the issues raised with him. The Tribunal finds his explanation for how his wife became pregnant with their [number] child after they were separated to be unconvincing particularly as he repeatedly stated that he had not had any sexual relations with her for a long time including prior to separation and was not interested in her. These issues raise concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Seventh, during his interview with the Department, the applicant stated that after [Mr A]’s wife, [Ms H], located his whereabouts, went to his home and told his wife about his relationship with her husband, he and [Mr A] then went into hiding in the regions outside Accra and stayed in hiding from February 2017 until he left Ghana in March 2018.
During the hearing, the applicant gave a different version of events. He stated that after [Mr A]’s wife, [Ms H], followed the two of them to his house on 14 February 2017 and told his wife that the two of them were in a homosexual relationship, [Mr A] left his wife. The two of them then found a place in Accra to “have their freedom”. When asked whether he rented a place, he responded no. [Mr A] went to his house sometimes and then left. When asked where [Mr A] lived between 14 February 2017 and March 2018, he responded that the two of them rented a place in Accra. When asked whether the two of them lived together in that rented property, he responded that he would go and visit his children and spent time with [Mr A] as well including staying overnight with him.
During the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he was satisfied that his application for a Protection visa was accurate. In his application for a Protection visa, which he stated was accurate, he stated that he lived at the same address at [Neighbourhood 2] in Accra from January 2014 until March 2018. He also stated that he worked as an [Occupation 1] at [Neighbourhood 2] from June 2003 until March 2018. He made no mention of being in hiding in the regions outside Accra in his application for a Protection visa or in his Statement of Claims. These inconsistencies in his evidence raise issues about his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
The Tribunal raised this as an issue with the applicant. He responded that, during his interview with the delegate, he was under a lot of pressure. It was not easy for him as it was his first time. After [Ms H] followed them and found out that they were in a relationship, they found a place. [Mr A] went to a place called [Neighbourhood 3]. He would go to [Mr A]’s place after his wife left. He went to his place at [Neighbourhood 3] if he missed him and they wanted “to have an affair”. Sometimes, if they had money, they would find a guest house.
The applicant’s response does not address the issues raised with him or alleviate the Tribunal’s concerns.
Eighth, [Mr A]’s evidence in relation to his separation from his wife and the events surrounding their separation are very different to the applicant’s evidence. During his interview with the Department, [Mr A] gave evidence that, after his wife discovered he was homosexual on 14 February 2017, she continued to live with him. The two of them then separated in April 2017 when she left their home without their children. Their children thereafter lived with his mother and she looked after them. He continued to live alone in his home until March 2018 when he left Ghana.
During the first hearing, [Mr A] gave a different version of events. He stated that he bought some chocolates for his wife on Valentine’s Day on 14 February 2017. He told her that he was going out with the applicant. She made a comment that the two of them looked like they were into each other. He and the applicant then went to a club and she followed them to the club. She came into the club and started shouting that the two of them are homosexuals. She then left and went to her parents’ home without their children. On the following day, that is 15 February 2017, she went to the applicant’s house and told his wife that the two of them were in a homosexual relationship. On 16 February 2017, she went to their house to collect her things. That was the last time he saw her face to face. During the second hearing, he changed his evidence and stated that his wife stayed at their home until April 2017 and then left.
[Mr A] gave evidence to the Tribunal that he was satisfied that his application for a Protection visa was accurate. In his application for a Protection visa, he stated that he lived at the same address in Accra from November 2016 to March 2018. He also stated that he worked in [Occupation 2] at [Company 1] in Accra from May 2017 to March 2018. He never claimed that he and the applicant were in hiding in regional Accra from February 2017 until March 2018.
The Tribunal put this information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that the inconsistencies within his evidence and the inconsistencies between his evidence and [Mr A]’s evidence raise issues in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims. He did not respond.
Ninth, in his Statement of Claims, the applicant claimed that his family harassed and mistreated him after they found out that he was homosexual. He claimed that they threatened to harm him if he continued his “gay practice” because he disgraced his family. He claimed that he did not seek help in Ghana after he was beaten, harassed and threatened by his family. He claimed that his family will know if he returns to Ghana and will search for him. He also claimed that he fears that if he returns to Ghana and if his true sexuality is discovered his life will be a total disaster. He claimed that his family are devoted Christians, will not forgive him for being homosexual and will want him dead because he will be seen as an embarrassment or a disgrace to the family. He claimed that, if he returns to Ghana, he will be harassed, beaten, discriminated against and killed by his family because of his membership of the particular social group “LGBT”.
During the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant a number of questions about these claims. He stated that members of his (extended) family found out that he is homosexual when his wife told them shortly after 14 February 2017. When asked how they reacted, he responded that they hate him and do not want to help him. His parents are “strong devoted Christians.” In his visa application, he stated that his parents are deceased and he has a brother and sister who live in Ghana. When asked when his parents passed away, he responded that his father passed away in 1991 and his mother passed aware in 1996. He earlier gave evidence that he is in contact with his brother and sister but not frequently.
The Tribunal gave the applicant many opportunities to give further evidence about his claims for protection. At the end of his evidence, the Tribunal asked him if he had told the Tribunal everything he wished to say and he answered yes. The Tribunal also asked him if he had told the Tribunal all the reasons why he feared returning to Ghana and he replied, “I should think so” and reiterated his previous evidence. Despite all this, he gave no evidence to support his written claims that his family harassed and mistreated him after they found out that he was homosexual and threatened to harm him if he continued his “gay practice”. His written claims in relation to his family are not consistent with his evidence that he is in contact with his brother and sister although irregularly. Further, his claimed fear that if he returns to Ghana and if his true sexuality is discovered, his life will be a total disaster is not consistent with his evidence that his family found out that he is homosexual when his wife told them shortly after 14 February 2017 and he thereafter continued to live in Ghana until March 2018 without suffering any harm from his family.
These issues raise further concerns in relation to the applicant’s credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Tenth, in his Statement of Claims, the applicant claimed that he fears mob violence in Ghana because rumours of one being homosexual will prompt a group of people to attack the victim. He claimed that he faced the risk of serious harm, harassment and mistreatment while in Ghana. He claimed that his life was in danger because of his “homosexual practice” which society considers to be an evil practice. He claimed that he did not seek help in Ghana after he was beaten, harassed and threatened by the community. He also claimed that he fears that if he returns to Ghana and if his true sexuality is discovered his life will be a total disaster. He claimed that he fears that if he returns to Ghana, he will not be able to live openly as a homosexual. He claimed that he will be harassed, beaten, discriminated against and killed by the community because of his membership of the particular social group “LGBT”. He claimed that the Ghanaian authorities will not protect him.
The evidence before the Tribunal is that [Mr A]’s wife, [Ms H], went to a club the applicant and [Mr A] were at on 14 February 2017 and started shouting that the two of them are homosexuals. Members of the community at the club at that time would therefore have been aware since then that they are homosexuals. They continued to live and work in the same jobs in Accra from 14 February 2017 to March 2018 without any member of the community tracking them down with a view to harming them. The only violent incident they were involved in was when the applicant was seen kissing [Mr A] at a club in February 2017. ([Mr A] stated that this happened on 1 May 2017).
There is no evidence to suggest that any member of the community reported the applicant and [Mr A] to the Police or that they are of adverse interest to the Police. The purported email from [Mr A]’s brother, referred to above, refers to posts on social media and traditional media looking for him and [Mr A] as people in Ghana suspect that they are in a relationship. However, no links were provided for these posts. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the email is authentic.
These issues raise further concerns in relation to the applicant’s credibility and the veracity of his claims.

Eleventh, during his interview with the Department, the applicant stated that he did not attend Church in Ghana. He stated that he never attended Church in Ghana. He then stated that he went to [Church 1] in [Neighbourhood 2] a very long time ago.
During the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he sometimes attended [Church 1] in Ghana. He stated that, after coming to Australia, he has attended [Church 2] in [Suburb 1] every Sunday. When asked how he did that when he has been living in Newcastle (since 2020), he responded that he has not attended [Church 2] since he moved to Newcastle and only his partner attends Church. He does not attend Church in Newcastle.
During his interview with the Department, the applicant was asked how he found out about [Church 2]. He responded that he asked a stranger at the Railway Station at [Suburb 2] where he could find a Church and was told to go to [Church 2] in [Suburb 1]. When the delegate questioned him why the stranger would send him to a Church in [Suburb 1] when he was at [Suburb 2], he responded that he asked the stranger for a “gay Church” and was told about [Church 2]. The delegate asked him whether he looked on the internet and he answered no.
The applicant lodged with the Tribunal a written statement that was unsigned and undated. In that statement, he stated that [Mr A] did a search on Google for “LGBTQI friendly Churches”, found out about [Church 2] and both of them then joined [Church 2].
During the hearing, [Mr A] gave evidence that when he was in the armed forces in Ghana and living in the barracks he attended Church. After he retired in August 2016, he did not attend Church. He then stated that he would occasionally go to Church. After coming to Australia, he did a search on Google, found out about [Church 2], contacted [Church 2] and spoke to someone called [Ms I] who gave him directions. He then started attending [Church 2] in April 2018.
The Tribunal put this information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that it raised issues in relation to his motivation for attending [Church 2], his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
The applicant responded that, during his interview with the Department, he said he was not “punctual” and did not attend Church regularly. He did not know anyone in Australia. He did not know about [Church 2]. He is not good with technology but [Mr A] is. He did a search on Google and found out about [Church 2]. There was a telephone number so he contacted [Ms I] who gave them directions to [Church 2].
The applicant’s response does not address the issues raised with him or alleviate the Tribunal’s concerns.
Twelfth, the applicant’s conduct and the conduct of [Mr A] are not consistent with their claims. The records of the Department indicate that the applicant and [Mr A] arrived in Australia [in] March 2018 as the holders of [temporary] visas that were valid until 15 May 2018. The applicant applied for a Protection visa on 8 May 2018. [Mr A] applied for a Protection visa on 5 May 2018. This was shortly before their [temporary] visas expired. Both the applicant and [Mr A] claimed that they decided to come to Australia and claim protection here.
The applicant’s evidence is that he started working in Australia as a labourer in the construction industry after he got here (in March 2018). He then stated that it was in April or May 2018. He has been financially supporting his wife and children whilst in Australia. He sends his wife money for the children’s school fees and for food.
The Tribunal put the above information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that, in these circumstances, it would expect that he and [Mr A] would have applied for Protection visas soon after their arrival in Australia. The Tribunal noted that his delay in applying for a Protection visa until just before his [temporary] visa expired may lead it to the conclusion that he applied for a Protection visa to extend his stay in Australia and not because he is homosexual and in need of protection. The Tribunal also noted that it may come to the conclusion that his employment in Australia was a higher priority than seeking protection here.
The applicant responded that when they came to Australia, they did not know anyone here and did not know what to do. It was difficult to approach someone and ask for help. They found the preparation of the visa application to be difficult. They were living in [Suburb 3] in a room and were not in the system. It is not the case that they just wanted to stay here and work. They did not know anyone in Australia and it was tough for them. It got to a point that it was a problem to get money for daily bread. The Tribunal noted his evidence that, after his arrival in Australia, he took a train to Sydney, hailed a taxi, the driver was Ghanaian and took them to his house. The Tribunal noted that he could have asked this person for his help.
The applicant responded that he and [Mr A] arrived in Queensland. He took a train to Sydney. A taxi driver took him and [Mr A] to his house. They were not working and he helped them. He gave them roast chicken to eat when he took them to his house. They spent the little money they had and had no money to pay a lawyer. They were not working and found it difficult to prepare their applications for Protection visas. He did not explain why he did not ask the Ghanaian man they were living with to help them or refer them to someone who could.
The Tribunal finds it implausible that the applicant and [Mr A] planned to travel to Australia and claim asylum here and did not plan how they were going to support themselves financially in Australia and how they were going to apply for Protection visas. The applicant’s evidence is that [Mr A] was good with computers and used Google to undertake research. The Tribunal would therefore expect him to have undertaken some research and made arrangements in relation to accommodation, employment and applying for protection prior to coming to Australia.
The Tribunal also finds it implausible that the applicant and [Mr A] arrived in Queensland, took a train to Sydney, hailed a taxi and the taxi driver just happened to be a Ghanian man who took them to his home and fed and accommodated them. The Tribunal considers that these arrangements were made prior to their arrival in Australia. The Tribunal also finds it implausible that they were both able to obtain employment in the construction industry soon after their arrival in Sydney. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal concludes that arrangements had been made for their accommodation and employment prior to their arrival in Sydney.
Further, the reference to ‘membership of a particular social group’ in his Statement of Claims tends to indicate that he had more knowledge of applications for a Protection visa than he has disclosed or that he had the assistance of someone who had that knowledge. Still further, the evidence of [Mr C] (see below) is that he is Ghanaian, first met the applicant and [Mr A] on 24 March 2018 and is very close friends with them. He is a permanent resident of Australia and had himself applied for a Protection visa. In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds it implausible that the applicant and [Mr A] did not seek information from him or seek his assistance to prepare their applications for Protection visas.
The applicant’s conduct in Australia and his delay in applying for a Protection visa are not consistent with his claims and raises issues in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Thirteenth, the applicant provided the Department with a document which he claimed was a WhatsApp message received by [Mr A]. There is nothing in the message to indicate who sent the message or when it was sent. There is a handwritten note on the sheet of paper which states “2 weeks ago around 5 – 10 May 2018”. The message states that social media and traditional media are looking for him and [Mr A] as people in Ghana suspect that they are in a relationship. The Christian Council and other interested parties came out against homosexual relationships the previous week and were even suggesting the death sentence. The author of the message advised them that Ghana was not safe for them and they should find somewhere that would accept them as they cannot “get it right back home”. The message ends with “Thanks. Yours truly” and does not have a name.
During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed this document with the applicant. When asked who the message was from, he responded that it was from a friend of [Mr A]. He could not remember the name of the friend or when it was sent but guessed it was sent in 2018. When asked how it was received, he responded by WhatsApp. When asked why it was sent, he responded that it was about what was happening back home and the danger of same sex marriage.
During his interview with the Department, [Mr A] provided the Departmental officer with the message which he claimed was from his brother and was sent to him by email. During the hearing, he gave evidence that it was an email from his brother which he received [after] March 2018 but could not remember the date. The Tribunal asked him why the email did not have details of the senders name, email address or date, he responded that he could not remember and it was sent to him by email. When asked why it was sent to him, he responded that it was because of the attack and their lives were in danger.

100. The Tribunal put this information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that the problems with the document and the inconsistencies between his evidence and the evidence of [Mr A] raise issues in relation to the authenticity of this document. The Tribunal noted that it may come to the conclusion that the document was fabricated for the purpose of supporting his claims and [Mr A]’s claims for protection.
101. The applicant responded that he could not remember the document. It was sent by email or WhatApp. The document was sent by email. There was no email address and he said he could not remember. It was not sent to his telephone or email address.
102. The applicant’s response does not address why he thought the message was from [Mr A]’s friend instead of his brother or why he thought it was sent by WhatsApp instead of email. Even if the message was not sent to him, the Tribunal would expect [Mr A] to have told him the details. He clearly thought it was important as he provided a copy to the Department. In these circumstances, the Tribunal would expect him to remember who sent the message even if he did not directly receive the message.
103. Besides not having any details in relation to the name and email address of the sender and the date and time when the email message was sent, the message also ends with “Thanks. Yours truly.” It is not apparent from the message why the sender is thanking [Mr A]. More importantly, if the sender was [Mr A]’s brother as claimed, it is implausible that his brother would have ended the message to him with the words “yours truly” which is customary in a more formal business setting. Further, the message refers to social media and traditional media looking for him and [Mr A] but does not contain any details or links to the social media or traditional media.
104. In view of these problems with this document and the inconsistencies in the evidence in relation to the document, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it is an authentic document. The Tribunal concludes that the applicant lodged this document with the Department to enhance his prospects of getting a Protection visa.
105. Fourteenth, the applicant’s conduct is not consistent with his claims. During the hearing, he gave evidence that when he and [Mr A] heard of [an opportunity] in Australia they planned to come here, get married and have their “freedom of rights”. In his undated and unsigned statement lodged with the Tribunal, he stated that Australia legalising same sex marriage was a significant part of what drove them to “relocate” to Australia. During the hearing, he stated that they are planning to get married in early 2023. After they get married, they will provide the Tribunal a copy of their (Marriage) Certificate. He also gave evidence that he has been living and working in Newcastle since 2020 or 2021 and [Mr A] has continued to live and work in Sydney.
106. The Tribunal raised as issues with the applicant his claims and evidence that he and [Mr A] left their children, family, jobs and homes to come to Australia so that they could be together. He came here because they could live together and get married without a problem. They both stated that their relationship is very strong. However, they are not living together and have not even lived in the same city for several years. They are also not married. The Tribunal noted that this tends to indicate that their employment is more important than their relationship. The Tribunal noted that it may come to the conclusion that he is not homosexual, that [Mr A] is not his partner and that he came to Australia for the purpose of getting a good job and earning money to support his family.
107. The applicant responded that he and [Mr A] are together. He was offered a job as a [Occupation 3]. Before they asked him to go to Newcastle, he and the company “battled over it”. He did not want to leave his partner. They came to the conclusion that when the contract was completed, he could return to Sydney. He visits Sydney every two weeks. His contract is coming to an end and he will return to Sydney in January (2023). In relation to their marriage, they have informed board members of [Church 2]. Their Pastor has been transferred and the new Pastor is coming. They planned their wedding before the Covid-19 pandemic. The [Church 2] is aware that they want to get married.
108. The Tribunal does not find the applicant’s response to be persuasive. The Tribunal considers that if he and [Mr A] came to Australia so that they could be together and this was important to them, he would have obtained employment in Sydney. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he would not have been able to obtain employment as a [Occupation 3] in Sydney considering that Sydney has a much larger population and employment opportunities than Newcastle. The Tribunal also takes notice of the fact that there is a demand for [Occupation 3]s in Sydney.
109. Further, notwithstanding the applicant’s evidence about planning to get married in early 2023 and providing the Tribunal with his Marriage Certificate, he has not provided the Tribunal with a copy of his Marriage Certificate even though it is now in the second half of 2023.
110. These issues raise further concerns in relation to the applicant’s credibility and the veracity of his claims.
111. Fifteenth, the Tribunal has considered the evidence given by [Mr C]. In his written statement dated 11 August 2022, he stated that he is a migrant from Ghana who has been an Australian citizen for a number of years. As a long-standing member of the Ghanaian community, he has had contact with many Ghanaian people in Australia, especially in Sydney. He met the applicant and [Mr A] on 24 March 2018. He was a taxi driver and was parked in front of the [hotel] in [location]. Two men approached him. They were lost and pleaded to be taken home to [Suburb 3]. In the car, they were speaking in his language and he realised that they were Ghanaian. They told him they had arrived (in Australia) [in] March 2018. They exchanged telephone numbers and engaged in telephone calls from time to time.
112. [Mr C] stated that, after a few months, the applicant and [Mr A] became frequent visitors to his home and attended family dinners every few weeks. At these dinners, he came to know their stories and why they had fled from Ghana. Hearing that LGBTI individuals are treated inhumanely in Ghana was not a surprise to him. The Ghanaian community in Sydney welcomed them and commended them for their strength, courage and determination. He assessed the genuineness of their relationship by how protective they were of each other when they first arrived. Each one was fearful of being separated from the other for long periods of time “in traumatic fear“ that one will be harassed and taunted. According to them, this was a habit formed in Ghana due to frequent occurrences of public and family mistreatment.
113. [Mr C] stated that another reason he can attest to the genuineness of their relationship is the boldness of their embrace of their sexuality. Despite their experiences, they are proud of their identity and being able to overcome their circumstances. It was not an easy decision for them to seek protection in Australia. Although they have a deep love for Ghana, they often expressed a sense of betrayal from the people who are known to be loving and liberal. Being ostracised and in a state of constant fear for your life is no way to live. The protection that they have been granted here in Australia has broadened the ability to live life in a more fruitful and endeavouring manner.
114. [Mr C] stated that the applicant and [Mr A] are resilient, hard-working, have “good social citizenship” and have displayed this in their jobs and social involvement in voluntarily attending and participating at [Church 2]. He has no doubt of their intention to live in Australia or the “validity of their personalities” and they would otherwise not be frequent visitors to his family home. They deserve to continue living out their truths but need Australia to give them a fresh start safe from intentional harm.
115. During the hearing, [Mr C] gave evidence that he first met the applicant and [Mr A] on 24 March 2018. He was driving a taxi and was parked in [location]. They approached him and wanted to find their way to [Suburb 3]. When asked whether they asked him where he was from, he responded no. When asked whether he asked them where they were from, he responded no. He volunteered to take them home. In the car they spoke to each other and he listened to their conversation. He is also from Ghana and they were speaking in his language. They were discussing something that happened to them and he then knew that they were in trauma and fear.
116. [Mr C] gave evidence that he identified himself to the applicant and [Mr A] and gave them his card. They thereafter frequently went to his house until now. When asked whether they were close friends, he responded “very close.” When asked what else he would like to tell the Tribunal, he responded that he met them, saw who they were and they were people living in fear, persecution and trauma. Since their arrival in Australia, they have had the experience of being protected. They have not sought protection before. Living in Australia, they have come to know how the law protects them. They have come to realise that they could not demonstrate their sexuality in public before. When they realised the law protects them, they are able to embrace their sexual relationship in public and in front of people.
117. [Mr C] gave evidence that the applicant and [Mr A] are proud to identify themselves in public by kissing and wearing earrings. This is not common where they come from. They call Australia home now. Since he has moved with them, he has seen how genuine they are. They are hardworking people. They have characters that can be trusted. They do not have a criminal history and do not engage in any criminality. He has opened his house to them. He has children who were born here and understand. They are keen to welcome them in their house.
118. [Mr C] gave evidence that he has pity for the applicant and [Mr A]. Ghana is a traditional country and homosexuals are persecuted and are social outcasts. If one or two people find out that a person is homosexual, that person can be lost at any time. Recently, when people identified as gay or lesbian, they got lost and no one knows where they are. Their families do not have money to go to the Police to report it.

119. [Mr C]’s oral evidence in relation to when and how he found out that the applicant and [Mr A] had experienced traumatic events in Ghana is not consistent. In his written statement, he stated that he did not find this out until several months after he first met them on 24 March 2018. In his oral evidence, he stated that he found out on 24 March 2018 when he overhead their conversation in the back of his car.
120. In his evidence, [Mr C] described himself as a very close friend of the applicant and [Mr A]. This is not consistent with the applicant’s evidence that he has no friends in Australia. The Tribunal put this information and the inconsistent evidence given by [Mr C] to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that it raises issues in relation to the nature of his relationship with him and [Mr A] and his credibility as a witness. The Tribunal noted that, if [Mr C] was a very close friend who had also applied for a Protection visa, it would expect him and [Mr A] to have sought his help with their applications for Protection visas.
121. The applicant responded that they met [Mr C] at [location] around 2am on 24 March 2017 (sic). They approached him, told him they were going to [Suburb 3] and did not have any money. He took them to [Suburb 3]. They were chatting in the back street, he got to know they were from Ghana and gave them his card. They got to know him but did not go to his house “consistently”. He called them and invited them to dinner. Once in a while they went to dinner and established a relationship with his children and family. [Mr A] responded, in part, that he did not consider [Mr C] to be a friend.
122. The applicant’s response does not address the issues raised with him or alleviate the Tribunal’s concerns. The inconsistencies between his evidence and [Mr C]’s evidence raise issues in relation to the nature of their relationship.
123. The Tribunal finds aspects of [Mr C]’s evidence to be implausible. Firstly, the Tribunal finds it implausible that if the applicant and [Mr A] were lost in [location] at 2.00am on 24 March 2018, were trying to find their way home to [Suburb 3] and approached a taxi driver who looked of African ethnicity like them, neither they nor [Mr C] inquired as to where the other was from. Secondly, the Tribunal finds it implausible that [Mr C], who was working as a taxi driver, would volunteer to drive them from [location] to [Suburb 3] free of charge when he did not know where they were from or anything about them.
124. Thirdly, the Tribunal finds it implausible that the applicant and [Mr A] would have been discussing something traumatic that happened to them in Ghana in the back seat of a taxi at 2.00am when they were with a stranger, did not know where he was from and whether he could understand them. Fourthly, the Tribunal finds it implausible that [Mr C] would describe his relationship with the applicant and [Mr A] as a very close friend when neither of them agreed with his description of their relationship and [Mr A] did not even consider him to be a friend. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this inconsistency can be explained by cultural factors as submitted by his lawyer in her post hearing submissions
125. The Tribunal also finds it implausible that on two occasions when the applicant and [Mr A] needed assistance with transport in Sydney, they happened to come upon a taxi driver who was Ghanaian. The chances of this happening in a large city the size of Sydney is remote.
126. The Tribunal considers that [Mr C] has not been truthful about the circumstances in which he met the applicant and [Mr A] and the nature of his relationship with them. The Tribunal does not find him to be a credible witness. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is not persuaded by the post hearing submissions made by the applicant’s lawyer that the Tribunal should give considerable weight to his evidence when determining the applicant’s claims.
127. Sixteenth, the Tribunal has considered the evidence given by [Ms B] in support of the applicant’s case. The applicant filed with the Department a written statement dated 16 May 2018 from [Ms B]. She stated that [Church 2] was established [number] years ago and began as an outreach to the gay and lesbian Christian population who were rejected by other Churches. She and her partner have been attending the Church since 1998. She is a member of the Board of Directors [Church 2] and previously held the role of Coordinator of [a specified] Council for 6 years. The Minister is homosexual and has been the Minister since the inception of [Church 2] [number] years ago.
128. [Ms B] stated that she met the applicant at [Church 2] and instantly felt the genuine warmth and relief from him and [Mr A] at being at [Church 2] where they could openly worship together. She found him to be intelligent, articulate, compassionate, personable and grateful. He identifies as a “gay man and as a Christian”. He has taken steps to reach out to make friends with other in the Church. He and [Mr A] are keen to be accepted within the congregation, show a keen interest in the Church and becoming more involved. They attended an outing on Sydney Harbour that she organised. During lunch they were questioned about their journey and “told of horrendous actions against LGBT people in Ghana. The plight of LGBT people in Africa troubles them both deeply.
129. [Ms B] stated that, as a Christian, the applicant gives thanks to God for having arrived in Australia and would like to become more involved as time goes on. She understands that he would be at risk of facing “serious persecution, threats, intimidation or worse, death, if he were returned to Ghana.” She regards herself to be a new Church friend of them both and holds grave concerns for their future should the Australian government not grant them Protection visas. She believes “his life would be in grave danger or, at best, his human spirit” and urged that consideration be given to his application to remain in Australia as a refugee. Her Church is not new to the plight of homosexual refugees and they have fought long, hard battles in the past to secure the safety of their Church members.
130. During the hearing, [Ms B] gave evidence that she first met the applicant and [Mr A] at [Church 2] in 2018. They were Christian, seemed to love the Church and being there. They said when they arrived there it felt like coming home. They attended services together until the applicant moved to Newcastle and became involved straight away. She was the head of [named] Council and organised gatherings and outings once a month such as visits to the Art Gallery and to Cockatoo Island. When available the applicant and [Mr A] attended. They went to Cockatoo Island, the Christmas Day luncheon at the RSL and sang in the choir at Sydney Town Hall on Christmas Eve (prior to the Covid-19 pandemic). They have not had any outings for a while. The Church has become smaller since the Covid-19 pandemic.
131. [Ms B] gave evidence that her knowledge of the applicant and [Mr A] is based on what they have told her. She has not been to Ghana. She has done some research since they attended ([Church 2]). She knows them better than most people at the Church. She was asked to write a letter of support. When asked whether they had ever discussed their families, she responded [Mr A] more than the applicant. [Mr A] has told her about his mother, brother and sister.
132. The Tribunal referred to [Ms B]’s statement that the applicant “is a gay Christian from a country where both are regarded as intolerable and therefore dangerous” in her letter of support dated 16 May 2018 and asked her on what basis she made this statement. She responded on the basis on what the applicant and [Mr A] told her. She stated that being Christian is not highly regarded in Ghana and being LGBTI is not highly regarded and is dangerous. She and her partner did some research on LGBTI in Ghana. When asked whether she was aware of what the predominant religion is in Ghana, she responded no or she has forgotten. When asked whether it would surprise her to know that Christianity is the predominant religion in Ghana and more than 71% of the population are Christian,[1] she responded that it would not surprise her. The focus is on the LGBTI community. Otherwise, they could have gone to another Church.
[1] US State Department, 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Ghana (Ghana - United States Department of State)
133. [Ms B] stated that she is aware that it is important for the Tribunal to accept the applicant and [Mr A] as a gay couple. She told them that unless she is in a bedroom with them, she cannot substantiate that. From their behaviour at the Church, they are touchy, sit close together and have communion together. [Mr A] is watchful of how the applicant is. When they leave they always make sure they find her. There are kisses and hugs. The two of them put their arms around each other. She has not suspected that it is a ruse.
134. The Tribunal accepts that [Ms B] is a genuine and well meaning person who has befriended the applicant and [Mr A] and wishes to support their applications for Protection visas and “fight the long, hard battle” to “secure the safety” of Church members. It is not her role to test the credibility of the claims made by the applicant and [Mr A] that they are a homosexual couple or the veracity of the information they have provided her. Her evidence is that her knowledge of them is based on what they have told her. Her evidence to the Tribunal is that they were and are Christian, seemed to love the Church and being there and told her that when they arrived at [Church 2] it felt like coming home.
135. However, the applicant’s evidence is that he did not attend Church in Ghana or, alternatively, that he went to [Church 1] in [Neighbourhood 2] a very long time ago or, alternatively, that he sometimes attended [Church 1] in Ghana. He stated that [Mr A] researched and found a “gay Church” ([Church 2]) in Sydney. They started attending [Church 2] every Sunday prior to lodging their applications for Protection visas. His evidence is that he has not attended [Church 2] since he moved to Newcastle (in 2020) and he does not attend Church in Newcastle. This is despite his evidence that he travels to Sydney every second weekend. This is not consistent with [Ms B]’s assessment of him.
136. [Ms B]’s statement in her letter of support dated 16 May 2018 that the applicant “is a gay Christian from a country where both are regarded as intolerable and therefore dangerous” is based on what the applicant has told her and on what research she and her partner have undertaken in relation to the LGBTI community in Ghana. The applicant has not made any claims for protection in relation to his religion. The statement above, in relation to being a Christian, is not consistent with the country information.
137. The above evidence indicates that [Ms B]’s assessment of the applicant and his circumstances is based primarily on what he has told her and that he has not been honest with her. His conduct raises issues in relation to his motivation for attending [Church 2] and befriending [Ms B]. Whilst [Ms B] has also relied on her observations of the applicant and [Mr A] and country research she and her partner have undertaken, she is not an independent witness and is motivated by her desire to help him with his application for a Protection visa and “fight the long, hard battle” to “secure the safety” of a Church member.
138. The substantial evidence referred to herein leads the Tribunal to the conclusion that the applicant and [Mr A] found [Church 2] and started attending this Church, prior to lodging their application for Protection visas, to create the profile of a homosexual couple who are refugees, persuaded [Ms B] of this and then enlisted her assistance to support their applications for Protection visas.
139. In these circumstances, the Tribunal is not persuaded by the post hearing submissions made by the applicant’s lawyer that the Tribunal should give considerable weight to her evidence when determining the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal places little weight on [Ms B]’s evidence.
140. Seventeenth, the Tribunal has considered the photographic evidence provided by the applicant. He provided the Tribunal with about sixty one photographs taken in Australia. Some of the photographs are of him and [Mr A] inside [Church 2] in May 2018, September 2019 and November 2019 and attending various social outings with members of [Church 2] in July 2018, July 2019, August 2019, September 2019, November 2019, December 2019, February 2020 and December 2020. Some of the photographs are of him and [Mr A] attending Mardi Gras events in 2019 and 2020. Some of the photographs are of him and [Mr A] having drinks at [Suburb 4] in September 2019, dinner at [Suburb 4] in December 2021, lunch at [location] in September 2022, at [another location] in September 2022 and near the beach in Newcastle in November 2022.
141. The applicant and [Mr A] appear to like taking lots of photographs. However, the applicant has not provided the Department or the Tribunal with any photographs of them together in Ghana.
142. Eighteenth, the Tribunal raised as issues with the applicant its doubts that he is homosexual and the credibility of his claims. He responded that the only way for them to prove it is for someone to see them in the bedroom “having an affair”. They cannot do this for others to see. Most people who can testify are at [Church 2]. They know them very well. They cannot open themselves up for people to see they are gay. He does not have proof that they are homosexual. He assured the Tribunal that their relationship is a strong relationship. Unless there is someone else in the bedroom who can understand that they “are gay and homosexuals”.
143. The Tribunal assured the applicant that it’s decision would not be based on whether or not he provided photographs of him having sexual intercourse with [Mr A].
Other considerations
144. The applicant provided to the Department a number of media articles relating to homosexuality in Ghana dated 27 November 2017, 28 November 2017, 31 March 2018, 20 April 2018, 28 April 2018, 3 May 2018 and 6 May 2018. They refer to the treatment of homosexual men, the negative attitude of law makers and the Church of Pentecost towards homosexuality and legalising same sex relationships and the experience of a woman married to a homosexual man. The Tribunal has had regard to this country information and other open source country information.
145. The Tribunal has considered the submissions made by the applicant’s lawyer. In her submissions, she submitted that the applicant emphasises that his motivation to remain in Australia is his fear for his safety should he return to Ghana and not for economic reasons. His two witnesses have known and interacted with him for a number of years and believe that he and [Mr A] are in a homosexual relationship. It is unlikely that the applicants have been insincere in their interactions for such a substantial period of time. The witnesses’ evidence is that they have publicly held themselves out to be homosexual including to a member of the Ghanaian community. This perception alone could lead to a real chance of persecution and/or significant harm on return to Ghana.
146. The applicant’s lawyer submitted that both [Ms B] and [Mr C] have given evidence that the homosexual relationship between the applicant and [Mr A] is genuine based on their interactions with them. While [Mr C] described his relationship with more closeness than they did, their instructions are that this was due to the high regard in which they hold [Mr C] and for cultural reasons they would not refer to him as a friend. In the Australian context, they agree that their relationship with him could be referred to as a friendship. The Tribunal should give considerable weight to their evidence when determining the applicant’s claims.
147. The applicant’s lawyer submitted that it is rarely possible for a refugee to be able to prove every part of their case and it is frequently necessary to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt. Same-sex activity is illegal in Ghana. The introduction of a draft Bill aims to criminalise LGBTIQ+ people along with rights groups and anyone coming out in their support. It would further marginalise the LGBTIQ+ community in Ghana who could be imprisoned for simply identifying as homosexual. The Bill has been criticised as “State sponsored violence” and its existence perpetuates the isolation of the homosexual community and fear of violence from the community. In a May 2022 report, the UK Home Office found that homosexual people in Ghana were “likely to be subject to treatment from the State that by its nature and frequency amounts to persecution” and cited accounts of violence perpetrated by community members. As such, members of the homosexual community are at real risk of significant and/or serious harm in Ghana.
148. In view of the many problems with the evidence, referred to herein, and the Tribunal’s findings in relation to [Ms B] and [Mr C], the Tribunal is not persuaded by these submissions.
149. The Tribunal has had regard to the Tribunal’s Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility when assessing the applicant’s credibility. The Tribunal has also had regard to the Department’s Policy Guidelines to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Findings
150. Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, all the evidence and the submissions, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a witness of truth. The Tribunal finds that he fabricated his material claims for the purpose of obtaining a Protection visa.
151. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was born on [date] at Accra in Ghana. The Tribunal accepts that his parents are deceased and that he has a sister and brother who live in Ghana. The Tribunal accepts that he has irregular contact with them. The Tribunal accepts that he entered into a de facto relationship with his wife on or about 1 March 2005. The Tribunal accepts that he has [number] children of this relationship. The Tribunal does not accept that he has separated from his de facto wife.
152. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant and [Mr A] were friends in Ghana. The Tribunal does not accept that after he and [Mr A] arrived in Sydney by train, they hailed a taxi, the taxi driver happened to be Ghanaian, drove them to his home in [Suburb 3] and provided them with food and accommodation. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal concludes that arrangements for their accommodation, employment and lodging of applications for Protection visas were made prior to their arrival in Sydney.
153. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the WhatsApp message from [Mr A]’s friend or, alternatively, the email from [Mr A]’s brother is an authentic document.
154. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant and [Mr A] met [Mr C] in the circumstances claimed or that their relationship with him is as described by them or by him. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that he is not a credible witness and places no weight on his evidence. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is at risk of serious harm or significant harm if he returns to Ghana now or in the reasonably foreseeable future because he has informed a member of the Ghanaian community in Australia that he is homosexual and in a homosexual relationship in Australia.
155. The Tribunal accepts that, after their arrival in Sydney, the applicant and [Mr A] obtained work as labourers in the construction industry. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant undertook a Certificate III and Certificate IV in [subject]. The Tribunal accepts that he subsequently obtained employment as a [Occupation 3] and moved to Newcastle in 2020 for the purpose of his employment. The Tribunal accepts that [Mr A] continued living in Sydney and working in the construction industry.

156. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant did not attend Church in Ghana or stopped attending Church in Ghana a long time ago. The Tribunal accepts that after he and [Mr A] arrived in Sydney, [Mr A] undertook research to find a “gay Church” and found out about [Church 2]. The Tribunal accepts that he and [Mr A] started attending [Church 2] every Sunday prior to lodging their applications for Protection visas. The Tribunal accepts that he has not attended Church since he moved to Newcastle in about 2020 or 2021.
157. The Tribunal considers that [Ms B] is a genuine and well-meaning person who has befriended the applicant and [Mr A], wishes to support their applications for Protection visas and “fight the long, hard battle” to “secure the safety” of Church members. However, for the reasons given above, the Tribunal places little weight on her evidence.
158. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or [Mr A] are homosexual and are or were in a homosexual relationship. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from this.
159. The Tribunal has considered the provisions of s.5J(6) of the Act and has come to the conclusion that the applicant and [Mr A] initially attended [Church 2] for the purpose of creating the profile of a homosexual couple but subsequently enjoyed participating in the social activities organised by [Church 2] and forming friendships. The Tribunal accepts that they participated in a number of social outings organised by [Church 2] in July 2018, 2019 and 2020. The Tribunal accepts that he and [Mr A] attended the Mardi Gras in Sydney in 2019 and 2020.
160. In view of the above, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is of adverse interest to his family members, the community or the Ghanaian authorities. The Tribunal does not accept that he came to Australia for the reasons claimed or that he fears returning to Ghana for the reasons claimed. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm to the applicant, for reason of his membership of a particular social group or any other reason claimed, if he returns to Ghana now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the refugee criterion?
161. Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all of the evidence and submissions and in view of the findings above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of his membership of a particular social group or any other reason set out in s.5J(1)(a) of the Act, that there is a real chance that he would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Ghana. Therefore, he does not meet the definition of refugee as set out in s.5H of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the complementary protection criterion?
162. As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered whether he may nevertheless meet the criterion for the grant of a Protection visa pursuant to the complementary protection criterion.
163. Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all of the evidence and submissions and in view of the findings above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he will be arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out on him, he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment if he returns to Ghana now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
164. Accordingly, 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 Ghana, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
165. 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) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
166. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act and who holds a Protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.
DECISION
167. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

L. Symons
Member
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
©    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
©    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
©    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
©    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
©    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;
©    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
©    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
©    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

© 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
©    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
©    the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2023] AATA 3734

18 August 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice