1819629 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Kenyan national. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in Kenya due to his ethnicity, his alleged association with the Mungiki organisation, and a risk of harm stemming from allegations of sexual assault. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Australia owed the applicant protection obligations.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims and determining whether he had discharged the onus of providing sufficient particulars and evidence to establish his case. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant's fear of harm was well-founded and for a Convention reason, and whether he faced a real risk of significant harm for the purposes of complementary protection. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's failure to attend a hearing and the implications for its ability to test and examine his claims.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory criteria for a protection visa. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant was a Kenyan national and that Kenya was the appropriate country of reference. However, it found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish his claims of persecution. The Tribunal did not accept that ethnic Kikuyu in Kenya faced an ongoing risk of serious harm, nor that the applicant had a profile with the Mungiki organisation that would place him at risk. The Tribunal also found inconsistencies in the applicant's account of his movements and his claims of being in hiding, particularly in light of his travel history and employment. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that any risk of harm to the applicant was remote and speculative.