1819719 (Refugee)

[2022] AATA 5160

1819719 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 5160 (19 December 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Paul Hense

CASE NUMBER:  1819719

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Sierra Leone

MEMBER:Gabrielle Cullen

DATE: 19 December 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 19 December 2022 at 11:16am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Sierra Leone – political opinion – fear of harm from Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) – active supporter and member of All People’s Congress (APC) – promoted APC and its candidates prior to 7 March 2018 election – role as polling agent – identified and reported stealing of votes by SLPP party members – sexual assault of mother and sister – death of sister – assault of brothers – credibility issues – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5, 36, 65, 424AA, 499
Migration Regulations 1994

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 dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 5 July 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant, who is a citizen of Sierra Leone, claims to fear return because the Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) will harm him and kill him due to his active support and membership of the All People’s Congress (APC). He claims members of the SLPP made several attempts to kill him, and after his departure to Australia, when the SLPP won the election, members of the SLPP beat and raped his mother and sister. He claims his sister later died from her injuries and his mother and brother have gone missing.

3. The applicant arrived in Australia on a subclass 408 visa [in] March 2018 as a member of Sierra Leone’s [sport] team to compete at the 2018 Commonwealth Games in the Gold Coast. He applied for a protection visa on 22 May 2018.

4. On 28 May 2018 the applicant was interviewed by the Department. The Tribunal has listened to the tape of that interview and where relevant the evidence from that interview appears in this decision.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 5 July 2018. The delegate did not accept the applicant was a credible witness as to his claims for protection including that he held any political profile or SLPP supporters harmed and mistreated him in the past or attacked his family after the election. The delegate therefore did not accept the applicant would face a real chance of serious harm or real risk of significant harm on return to Sierra Leone.

6. The applicant applied to the Tribunal on 6 July 2018.

7. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 5 September 2022 to give evidence and present arguments and where relevant the evidence from those hearings appears in this decision. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Krio and English languages although the applicant indicated that he did not always require the interpreter. The Tribunal advised that it is very important to use the interpreter when he did not understand something and when he could better articulate his answers in his own language, which he did when required.

8. At the applicant’s request, [Brother A], the applicant’s brother, and [Mr B] gave evidence via telephone from Sierra Leone.

9. The applicant’s representative did not attend the hearing.

10. The issues to be considered in this case are as follows:

    ·     Is the applicant credible as to his claims?

    ·     Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to Sierra Leone and meet the refugee protection provisions of the Act?

    ·     Does he meet the protection obligations under the complementary protection provisions of the Act?

    CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

11. The relevant criteria for a protection visa are outlined in the attachment to this decision.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

12. The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to the applicant. The Tribunal also has had regard to the material referred to in the delegate’s decision and other material available to it from a range of sources. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:

    ·     Applicant’s protection visa application dated 22 May 2018, identity documents and claims outlined in the application.

    ·     Letter of financial hardship and request to have work rights dated 15 June 2018. He also responds to the delay in his applying for protection.

    ·     Letter referring to the applicant’s financial hardship from [a named person] dated 20 June 2018.

    ·     Copy of the applicant’s sister’s death certificate from the Office of Chief Registrar Ministry of Health, Republic of Sierra Leone, stating that [my sister] passed away [in] April 2018.

    ·     Copy of the applicant’s APC Member card.

    ·     Oral evidence of the applicant provided at the Department interview on 28 June 2018 and Tribunal hearing held on 5 September 2022.

    ·     Oral evidence of the witnesses [Brother A] and [Mr B] given at the Tribunal hearing on 5 September 2022.

    ·     Applicant’s statutory declaration dated 29 August 2022.

    ·     Evidence supporting the applicant’s international sporting achievements.

    ·     Submission of the applicant’s representative dated 30 August 2022.

    ·     Report titled ‘Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project’ from 2020.

    ·     Article titled ‘Recent political violence in Sierra Leone exposes the country’s post‑conflict myth’ dated 22 August 2022.

    ·     Article titled ‘When emerging democracies breed violence: Sierra Leone 20 years after the civil war’ dated 7 January 2022.

    ·     Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Country Thematic Report ECOWAS, 3 December 2020.

    ·     Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and Humanitarian – Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and Humanitarian – Refugee Law Guidelines.

13. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    The applicant’s claims

14. The applicant in his protection visa application dated 22 May 2018 claims to fear harm due to his political opinion as a strong and active supporter of the Youth League of the APC which has lost the recent election. He claims that he will suffer serious physical harm or death if he returns.

15. He claims on 7 March 2018 in the first round of elections he acted as a party agent for the APC in his constituency and he prevented ballot stuffing by members of the SLPP, the party which is now in power. He claims he reported the election officers to the police, and as a result of his activities, he became a target for the SLPP supporters. He claims he was threatened by the SLPP PRO, [Mr C], and several attempts were made on his life.

16. He claims the APC tried to protect him until he came to Australia, but as soon as they lost the election, the SLPP went to his home to look for him. He claims they were led by [Mr C] and they severely beat and raped his mother and sister when they could not find him. He claims he heard that his sister died as a result of her injuries and that he cannot contact his mother and brothers as they have gone missing. He claims [Mr C] is now in charge of [deleted].

17. He claims the SLPP have control over the entire country, and that if he returns, his life will be in danger. He claims he will suffer physical harm and death at the hands of the SLPP because most of the thugs that targeted him are now occupying top government positions. He claims they will use their position of authority to harm him.

18. At the Department interview held on 24 June 2018 the applicant reiterated his claim to fear return on account of his political opinion, being a member and active supporter of the APC. The applicant was asked when, how and why he became involved in APC politics. He said he became involved in APC when he went to [College] and became a member around 2012. He said he served as [official position] of the Youth League at the College. He said he had always had leadership thrust upon him since primary school and this led to his leadership role in the APC at [College]. He said he became a member while at [College]. He was asked on a number of occasions why he was involved in the APC at College, why the APC appeals to him and what the goals are of the party. The delegate raised a number of concerns as to his level of knowledge of the APC considering his claimed role, and where relevant this and his response is outlined below.

19. The applicant was asked whether he was subjected to any harm or mistreatment in Sierra Leone to which he responded in the negative and said it was because his party was in charge at the time. He said he was not physically assaulted but they used to have arguments from time to time with the opposing party. He confirmed he never faced any harm or mistreatment as his party was in power and he was protected. He then said he received threats and that this is very common in African politics. He said the SLPP members used to tell them that they should be afraid because if they do not win the election there will be no place to hide, that they will be tortured and there will be no peace. He said these things were said to him by the SLPP PRO, [Mr C] and other SLPP members. When asked where he met [Mr C], he said they would meet him from time to time as he was [in a certain role] for the SLPP. He said it was not him alone [Mr C] referred to. He said he would meet the SLPP in groups and [Mr C] used to make threats to the group about what would happen if their party lost. When asked if he knew him personally, he said he did not think that man knew him personally but he knows that he could recognise him as they met on several occasions. When asked if anything else happened apart from verbal exchanges, he answered in the negative. When asked if there is anything else he wanted to tell the Department, he said no, other than he advocated for the welfare of others. The Department raised a number of concerns with his evidence including inconsistencies with his statement, and where relevant these concerns and his answers are outlined below. He said no one had tried to kill him while he was in Sierra Leone. After concerns were raised, he added that after the 7 March 2018 election people would come and throw stones on his home and they broke the glass on his house and that it was hard to get a good night’s sleep, and he said as this could kill you, then this was a threat on his life.

20. As to his constituency he said twice it was [a different area].

21. The delegate asked about what happened after the runoff election results were announced and he referred to his home [in][Town 1], Freetown being attacked on the night [in] April 2018 when they beat his brother, and both his mother and sister were sexually assaulted. He said his brothers had gone to the provinces and were in hiding and there is no direct network for him to be able to communicate with them. As to how he knew his home was attacked, he said friends in the area sent him messages via [social media] and through calls. He said they told him his brothers and mother had been beaten and his sister was in a critical condition because of what they did to her and she had been admitted to hospital. He said this was later confirmed by his uncle. The delegate raised a number of concerns including that in his application he referred to [Mr C] (SLPP PRO) attacking the house and he said he could not say directly that he was present but he knew he was aiding and abetting it and he believes he is behind it. The delegate also asked why his sister’s death certificate refers to her living in [City 1] when his evidence is she lived in [Town 1] from 2014 to 2018, including at the time of the attack. He said that is where his uncle lives, and after the attack his sister was moved to that area as his uncle was in charge and he lived in [City 1] and took her to the [hospital].

22. The delegate raised with him information that does not suggest overstaying a visa and returning home after competing at the Commonwealth Game would lead to him being targeted by the authorities.

23. He was asked whether he has any questions or whether there is anything else he wants to say about his claims and he was asked whether he has put forward all his claims, to which he stated he believes he has.

24. The applicant made the following statutory declaration dated 29 August 2022.

    1. I was born on [date] in [Eastern] Province, Sierra Leone.

    2. I am a citizen of Sierra Leone.

    3. I confirm that I have a well-founded fear of persecution, on the basis I cannot return to my native Sierra Leone because I fear persecution from supporters of the SLPP (Sierra Leone People's Party). I was a member of the All People's Congress Party, and I remain a member of the Party.

    4. I entered Australia [in] March 2018 on a subclass 408 Temporary Activity visa. I was a member of [a sporting] team for Sierra Leone at the Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast.

    5. Leading up to the Presidential elections of 7 March 2018, I was active in campaign work for the party. I was [official position] of the Students Union at [College] as well as being part of the Youth League of the APC. We viewed the League as a breeding ground for future leaders on the party. Our adage was “catch then when they are young”. While I was at college I would keep a look out for potential leaders.

    6. With my sporting profile as a well-known leading [sport] player, I was able to attract people to the party. I had represented Sierra Leone internationally in [a sport], and of course I had completed in national competitions as well.

    7. Also, with doing work for the party I thought it might help my own career. I thought, if events worked out very well, I could even become a Minister of Sport in an APC government.

    8. I (with others) did house to house canvassing for the party (we knew that personally making contact with voters, even to leave electoral material with them, was highly influential is mustering votes). I went with others from door to door, selling the local candidates of the APC. We spoke about the current APC Mayor and Councilors.

    9. We also did electoral education. We knew that many voters did not properly fill out the electoral ballot papers, not properly putting a cross for instance in squares. Voters were often careless when filling out the ballot papers, so we tried to maximise the APC vote by this tactic (really education).

    10. I did these political activities three or four times a week, half a day at a time, as soon as the March 2018 Presidentials were announced. I had to put aside time for training however, given the Commonwealth Games in Brisbane were coming up.

    11. On the day of the election - 7th March 2018 - I was also a party polling observer at a polling station. At the end of the day, the ballots were sealed by the electoral officers and were to be taken off site to a secure location. At the end of the day I noticed two people approaching the sealed boxes, they were two women. The boxes were only to be moved to another location by electoral officers. I said to the women "Don't move the boxes, that's only to be done by officials". I was able to get them to move away, but at the same I called the police who were stationed outside the polling station to come and take control of the situation.

    12. There were other occasions when I came to the notice of political adversaries. There was a place in Freetown called [Town 1]. It is about [distance] of Freetown It was where there was a juncture of the two main political parties., the APC and those of the SLPP. We (the APC) would have regular confrontations with SLPP members. Often threats were made to us such as "If you don't win in the elections, you won't have a place here". I took this to mean that if the APC lost the election, I wouldn't be able to live safely in the country. There would also be altercations between the two groups. This could either be verbal or physical. Being an outspoken person, I had been in several verbal altercations. Other party officials and even my parents were verbally insulted during our initial outreach of sensitisation. We always tried to avoid any sort of physical altercation.

    13. After the first Presidential poll on 7 March 2018, I left Sierra Leone [in] March 2018 to participate at the Commonwealth Games in Brisbane as a member of the Sierra Leone Commonwealth Games Team. I arrived in Australia [in] March.

    14. There was a run off election in Sierra Leone held on Saturday 31 March 2018. On the following Wednesday, 4 April the results were announced, with [the] SLPP receiving a majority of votes.

    15. From my uncle whose name was [Uncle A] I heard that terrible things had happened to my family after I left Sierra Leone (I had been living with my family before I came to Australia. I lived with my [mother], my sister [and] [brothers). We lived in Freetown.

    16. In April 2018 unidentified thugs had driven to my family residence and started throwing stones, damaging windows and the roof of the house and some of the household furniture was damaged. They entered the family home and sexually assaulted my sister and mother, and then beat them. They were left with severe body injuries. [My sister] had to be taken to hospital, and died later that month, with a contributing factor the sexual molestation (my sister was already frail when the attack occurred, but if the attack had not happened I feel she would be still alive today).

    17. My [brothers] were also severely beaten, and they had to run to save themselves.

    18. The house was vandalised. I can only think that the SLPP were responsible for the attack. It wasn't a robbery but political revenge as nothing of value was taken from the home except the mobile phones of my mother, sister and brothers. I suspected I was the main target of this attack as my family were told it was lucky I was not around at that time, but that they would be back.

    19. As I say, the assailants were unidentified, no one identified them from our community. I can only think this attack occurred because of my political activities, and the several confrontations I had had with SLPP opponents on the other side. There was one person at a spot in [City 1] before the run off election when I had an argument with a person about the trend of the election. He was very upset when I told him his agents were ballot stuffing. He reacted furiously to my allegation against his side - the SLPP. He said my claims were baseless and to be careful.

    20. I had a profile in the community as I was well known as an international [sport] player. Because of this it would have been easy for my political enemies to find out where I lived. Also, because of my sporting profile and political work, the SLPP would have known, as I did, that having this profile meant I could get the APC's political messages through more effectively.

    21. Having heard what my uncle told me after I had come to Australia, I lodged a Protection Visa application on 27 May 2018. My uncle died in 2021.

    22. I did not report the mistreatment that my family suffered as I was firstly out of the country when it occurred and I didn't know how to channel complaints while being outside of Sierra Leone. The police were also now controlled by the SLPP. After restoring communication with my brother, he told me that my family had made a complaint to the police, but nothing happened - they were not given much attention. Later, I was advised by senior party members that many complaints of brutality had come forth with the police doing nothing. It was a hard time for the Party to act as we were now in opposition.

    23. I did not have a migration agent to help me with lodging the Protection Visa application. An academic in Brisbane, who was also a citizen of Sierra Leone, helped me prepare the application.

    24. I would like to correct something from my Protection Visa application. In my application at page 19 (printed version), when giving details of the harm I experienced, the application read "As a result of my activities, I became a target for the SLPP thugs and supporters. Several attempts were made on my life and threats were made against me by the SLPP PRO ([Mr C])". Attempts on my life were not made, but I did receive threats which I understood to be threats against my life. Several times it was said to me by SLPP supporters that if the APC lost the election I wouldn't be allowed to live in the country. I note that at the interview with the Departmental officer (held on 28 June 2018) I corrected this misstatement of mine (in Sierra Leone we view a threat on ones life as an attempt on ones life). I said to the Departmental delegate that the throwing of stones on the roof of my home and glass broken was an attempt on my life. That's how such activities are seen in Sierra Leone, a threat is an attempt on one’s life. It's a cultural difference between Australian and Sierre Leone society.

    25. I suspect [Mr C] was ultimately responsible for the attack. He had often referred to the Youth League as the flies of the APC, and that we can be crushed easily. Most of the political violence back in Freetown was centred around him.

    26. I cannot safely live in any part of Sierra Leone, as the SLPP now govern the country, and can wield its influence anywhere in the country. There is a lot of tribal and political violence in the country. The Sierra Leone Government cannot protect me, as the police are corrupt as a matter of course, and now the police will not protect supporters of the Opposition political party in the country.

1. The applicant’s representative in a submission dated 30 August 2022 noted that:

   ·     The applicant fears persecution because of an actual and/or implied political opinion and that his persecutors are the now victorious SLPP following the 2018 presidential elections.

   ·     He has a profile as an elite athlete having travelled to Australia as a member of Sierra Leone’s Commonwealth Games [sports] team and as such there is a likelihood he would be known on return to Sierra Leone. He has a profile both as a political activist and non-returning member of the Games squad.

   ·     His political profile was used by the applicant for political activism and the use of sporting identities to raise the profile of an issue is well known.

   ·     His political profile is not low and he is not a proxy for the APC but an active and known member, and well known due to his identity.

   ·     He maintains his membership of the APC and he is instructed that the membership lasts for 5 years and is current.

2. The applicant’s representative also provided country information pertaining to the existence of and increasing level of political violence in Sierra Leone and lack of relocation as the persecutors are the ruling SLPP.

3. At the Tribunal hearing held on 5 September 2022 the applicant reiterated his claim to fear return at the hands of the SLPP members due to his past active involvement with the APC and as a result of threats made when his family were assaulted [in] April 2018. The Tribunal asked about where he had lived in Sierra Leone, as well as his family, and where they were now living. He said he lived [in][Town 1], from 2014 until he departed for the Commonwealth Games in March 2018. He said his brother, sister and mother lived with him. He said after the incident in [April] 2018, about 5 or 6 days later his mother and [brothers] moved to live in [City 1] with their [Uncle A]. He said it was his uncle who told him about the incident and he only had contact with his uncle after the incident as he was the only one he could reach. He said his brothers[did] not go to hospital following the incident.

4. As to why he fears return and what he thinks will happen on return, he said it was due to his activities with the APC in Sierra Leone and because of the threats against him given to his family at the time of the [April] assault. He said he was advised by his [Uncle A], who lived in [City 1] but has since died, to stay away and apply for protection. He said at the time of the incident [in] April when his family were attacked, threats were made against him. He said he was told by his uncle that it was lucky he was not around as they said they will be back to get him (the applicant).

5. The Tribunal asked him questions as to how, when and why he became involved in the APC. He confirmed that he became involved in his time at [College], which he attended from 2010 to 2014, and where he was part of the Youth League of the APC and became [official position]. He gave three reasons why he joined; firstly he claimed it was because of [Official D], who was his mentor, because they trained young people to be leaders and he had been a leader, and because of their ideology, focusing on Pan-Africanism and nationalism. He also referred to the APC being focused on development of national institutions and roads, bridges and infrastructure. When asked for more detail, he said it is about leadership, and young people being given the opportunity to develop and do something for the nation.

6. He said from January 2018 to the 7 March 2018 elections he was involved in outreach, going door to door campaigning for the APC. He said he would explain the voter process and why to vote for the APC in the presidential, parliamentary and mayor election. When asked, he said he was from constituency [deleted] and he thinks [name deleted] is the Member. The Tribunal raised with him that he had previously indicated at the Department interview he was part of [a different consistency].

7. As to whether he is still a member of the APC, he said he joined around 2010, maybe 2011/2 and he no longer pays as he is not an active member. When asked why he was not an active member he said because he is in Australia and he has to take care of his family as there are no resources. He said if he returns to Sierra Leone he will practise politics, and he will become an active member. He said he does not practise his politics in Australia but later said he follows what is happening.

8. As to the difficulties he faced in Sierra Leone he said he faced insults and threats mostly when undertaking political outreach in 2018. He said the SLPP members would say “ if you don’t win the election, you won’t have a place to stay”. He said there were arguments with the SLPP candidates which often turned to physical fights, but because he is not so muscular, he would run. He confirmed there were verbal and physical altercations between APC and SLPP members when he was present but he would run away when it turned physical. As to how often this happened, he said most times when conducting outreach. He confirmed those targeting them were random SLPP members. He did not refer to any other issues prior to election day.

9. On election day he said he was at the polling station in [Town 1] when, after the voting had finished, he saw through the window that two individuals from the SLPP got close to the boxes and tried to take them. He said he confronted them and yelled “What are you doing with those boxes?” and called the police who were outside. He said they threatened him and said something like when they win the election there will be no place for him. He confirmed there was a verbal altercation between him and the other APC representative and the representative from the SLPP. He said the SLPP said to him “Make sure you win the election otherwise you won’t have a place here”.

10. As to difficulties faced between 7 March 2018 and his departure [in] March 2018, he said during that period he went to [City 1] and he saw a member of the SLPP and told him about the ballot stuffing which he said was unfair, and in response the SLPP member said “Be careful with what you are saying”. The applicant said the SLPP member said “You are a little fly that can easily be squashed”. He said nothing further happened until he departed, as after that he was involved in sport preparing for the Commonwealth Games.

11. The Tribunal confirmed the above difficulties he faced in Sierra Leone up until his departure [in] March 2018 as outlined above and he confirmed these threats were from random SLPP members.

12. He later said he was directly threatened by [Mr C] in the above‑mentioned incident at [City 1].

13. The Tribunal then asked about the incident involving his family. He said it happened the night the results of the runoff election were announced. He said he received a call from his uncle who lived in [City 1] who told him unidentified SLPP people came to their home, beat his brothers and sexually assaulted his mother and sister. He said his brothers ran away and about 5 days later they were found and relocated to [City 1] living with their uncle. He said he did not know who attacked them.

14. As to why he believes his family was attacked, he referred to his pre‑election outreach activities for the APC, his confrontation on the day of the election due to the stuffing of ballot boxes and his confrontation with [Mr C] in [City 1] post-election, where he was playing [sport].

15. At the request of the applicant, the Tribunal spoke to a man in Sierra Leone claiming to be the applicant’s [brother], [Brother A]. He gave evidence consistent with the applicant that he is a student at University, and he said that they are not safe in Sierra Leone because of the political activities of the applicant. He said the applicant was active in the APC, including the Youth League of the APC, and particularly in the run up to the 2018 election. When asked what happened to him, he said he was beaten by SLPP members and had to go to hospital. He said his mother and sister were raped and they threatened the applicant. He said they came looking for the applicant and said they had come again looking for him once after the April 2018 incident. He said he had told his brother of this. He said he and his brother, straight after, ran away to his uncle’s in [City 1] and he has stayed there ever since. He said the SLPP come to their house in [City 1] and asked the whereabouts of the applicant and he has told his brother about this.

16. The Tribunal then spoke via telephone to a man claiming to be [Mr B], who was [an official] in the APC Government prior to the March 2018 elections. As to how he knows the applicant, he said he was a renowned [sport] player. He also referred to the applicant’s active political engagement in the eastern area of Freetown and that he was close to the local MP but he could not remember the name. The Tribunal asked him questions about his current role with the APC and he said he is a former Minister who currently works with the APC members of parliament as Secretary. The Tribunal asked him how many MPS the PAC currently has and he said 51, and the Tribunal questioned this number based on independent country information and questioned whether he has had and has the role he claims.

17. The Tribunal raised a number of concerns as to the credibility of the applicant’s claims and where relevant these have been outlined below. It also raised a number of matters via s 424AA and on all occasions the applicant elected to respond or comment orally at hearing. It questioned whether he was involved in the APC in the manner claimed, had faced the difficulties he claims and fears return for the reasons he claims. Where relevant these concerns have been outlined below.

18. When asked if he had anything to add, he said everything he has said is true.

    Is the applicant credible as to his claims?

19. Having sighted a copy of the applicant’s identity documents, and on the basis of his evidence at hearing, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a national of Sierra Leone for the purposes of s 36(2)(a) of the Act. For the purposes of s 36(2)(aa) the Tribunal accepts that Sierra Leone is the receiving country.

20. As to the applicant’s credibility, while the Tribunal has, as detailed below, significant concerns regarding central aspects of the applicant’s claims and evidence, there are other aspects of his claimed circumstances which have remained consistent over time and which the Tribunal is satisfied are true. Specifically, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was an elite [sport] player who represented his country at the 2018 Gold Coast Commonwealth Games and did not return to Sierra Leone with the team.

21. Notwithstanding the above, for the reasons that follow, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a credible witness as to his claims and fears return for the reasons he claims. It follows the Tribunal does not accept the applicant was ever involved in the APC or its student union or Youth League in the manner claimed or that he or his family faced any of the difficulties he claims as a result of his involvement in the APC or its associated student union or Youth League or as a result of undertaking any activities for the APC, including as a polling agent on election day. It finds his testimony to be inconsistent as to these claims and is of the view that he has fabricated claims and concocted evidence to achieve an immigration outcome.

    Involvement in the APC

22. Central to the applicant’s claims as to why he fears return is his claim of involvement with the APC. He claims he became involved as a member while at [College], which he attended from 2010 to 2014, and where he was part of the student union or Youth League of the APC and became [official position] for 2 years. He claims prior to parliamentary elections on 7 March 2018 he undertook outreach for the APC going from door to door campaigning for the APC and its presidential, parliamentary and mayoral candidates. He noted in his statutory declaration of August 2022 that he did his political activities four times a week prior to the election. However, for the reasons that follow, the Tribunal does not accept that he was ever involved in the APC, its student union or its Youth League in the manner claimed or undertook any activities for the APC or its student union or Youth League. This adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

23. Firstly, despite his claim of lengthy involvement with the APC from 2010 in a leadership position as [official position] of the Youth League or student union of the APC while at [College] and actively promoting the party in outreach, campaigning for the APC in 2018 prior to the 7 March 2018 election, the applicant provided vague evidence lacking in detail at the Department interview as to the goals of the party, which the Tribunal views as undermining his claim he was involved in the APC as claimed. Specifically, when asked the goals of the party at the Department interview, he noted the APC is development orientated, which encouraged people to do something for their country. He noted the APC was involved in grassroots development and believed in equality. When asked if there was anything else, he replied “I think that is enough for now” and when asked what he meant by that, he said the APC has lots of goals but as of now those were the two he could speak of. The delegate noted to him that he is trying to establish whether he is an active member of the APC and asked him to talk more about the organisation, and the applicant replied that the main thing is that they train for equality to treat everybody equally and to be developmentally orientated and more information could be obtained from the APC constitution. No further information was provided.[1] At hearing, when the concern was raised, he said he was nervous. While the Tribunal accepts the applicant would have been nervous at the Department interview, it does not accept this explains his lack of detailed knowledge of the goals of the party. The Tribunal is of the view if the applicant was involved in the APC for the length of time and in the manner claimed, he would have been able to provide far more detailed evidence as to its goals at the Department interview. This is particularly so as the interview was held on 28 June 2018, soon after his arrival in Australia and only approximately 3 to 4 months after he had been campaigning for the APC prior to the 7 March 2018 election. This is particularly so as he said at the Department interview that it was the goals of the party that attracted him to join the APC Youth League. It also notes that the applicant is tertiary educated. This adds to the finding he was never involved in the APC or Youth League or student union as claimed. It adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

    [1] As outlined in the Department decision attached to the Application for Review

24. When asked for similar information at the Tribunal hearing, he referred to its ideology as to why he joined and referred to the party’s support for Pan-Africanism and nationalism and that it is the party of development, such as building roads and bridges. When asked for further information about the APC and why he was involved he referred to young people being given the opportunity to develop. When the concern was first raised with the applicant at hearing as to his lack of detailed information he said when the APC sets goals, they achieve it, and when asked whether there are any other APC goals or policies, he referred to the rebuilding. When the Tribunal again raised with him at hearing that it may expect more detailed information considering his length and depth of his involvement, he referred to knowledge growing as he continued to practise. He confirmed he was saying that political knowledge is acquired over time and he has not had enough time. The Tribunal does not accept this response and is of the view if he was involved in the APC in the manner claimed for the length of time claimed, he would have been able to provide more detailed information as to its goals and policies at the Tribunal hearing, and particularly at the Department interview in 2018. While he was able to provide more detail at the Tribunal hearing held in September 2022 than at the Department interview, the Tribunal is still concerned his evidence was lacking in detail considering his length and depth of involvement. While it notes his evidence at hearing was that he has not been involved in APC politics in Australia, being 4 years since his arrival, as it is his claim, he was attracted to the party due to its goals, and due to his length and depth of involvement and activities, it is of the view he would be able provide more detailed evidence despite the passage of time. This adds to the finding he was never involved in the APC or the APC Youth League as claimed and adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

25. Further, while the applicant also indicated at the Tribunal hearing, similar to that provided at the Department interview that he joined as he liked that the APC supported leadership aspirations of the young and his leadership aspirations, he added at the Tribunal hearing for the first time that he joined as he had a mentor, [Official D], who supported him, as well as due to its ideology referring to, as noted above, its Pan-Africanism and nationalism and pro‑development agenda. The Tribunal is of the view if his mentor,  [Official D] was a key reason he joined the APC at [the college], as well as the Pan-Africanism, he would have mentioned this when repeatedly asked why he became involved at the Department interview. This undermines his claim he was involved in the APC at [College] in the manner claimed and adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

26. Of further concern is that twice at the Department interview the applicant indicated he was from [another constituent area], whereas at the Tribunal hearing he said he was from constituent area [deleted], which is the area for [Town 1] where he claims to have lived, and he referred to [name deleted] being the MP, which is the correct name for the current MP. When the concern was raised with the applicant, he said it was a slip of the tongue at the Department interview. However, as raised with him, he twice indicated at the Department interview he was part of [another constituent], and as a result the Tribunal does not accept it was a slip of the tongue. Considering his claim that prior to the election in March 2018 he was going house to house, doing outreach, promoting the APC and its candidates for the presidential, ministerial and mayoral elections as well as being at the local polling booth on the day of election, it is of the view he would, at the Department interview, held 3 to 4 months after he was campaigning, have been able to correctly name the constituency he was in if he had undertaken the activities he claims for the APC. His lack of knowledge at the Department interview, as raised via s 424AA, undermines his claim he was involved in the manner claimed in the APC. While the Tribunal notes that he was able to correctly name the constituency and its MP 4 years later, at the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal is of the view this is relatively easy information to learn and does not overcome its concern as to his evidence at the Department interview. This adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

27. Further, while not solely determinative, the Tribunal views as undermining the applicant’s claim as to his past involvement and any future involvement in the APC, his claim that while he was a member of the party, he is no longer a member while living in Australia. When asked why he is no longer a member of the party he said he has not paid to continue his membership as he is out of Sierra Leone as he has no resources and he is taking care of his family in Sierra Leone. He said if he returns, he will be able to become an active member. When the Tribunal raised as of concern his lack of current membership, while in Australia continuing to actively support the APC in this way as undermining his claim he was involved in Sierra Leone and will be on return, he referred to the fact that he is following the politics. The Tribunal is of the view if he was actively involved in politics, sustaining threats while campaigning and his claim he will be active on return, he would continue to be active while living in Australia, at a minimum continuing to be a member of the party where it is safe to do so.  It does not accept that a lack of resources or providing for his family explains his lack of membership of support for the APC in Sierra Leone when the cost  is minimal and he is working in Australia. It is of the view if was as active as he claims in support of the party, continuing to be involved despite threats  he would support the party while in Australia by continuing to be a member. His lack of membership adds to the finding he is not genuine in his claim he was active in APC politics in Sierra Leone and will be on return. This adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

    Difficulties faced by the applicant in Sierra Leone due to the applicant’s involvement with the APC

1. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant faced the difficulties he claims prior to his departure [in] March 2018 due to activities promoting the APC and its candidates, particularly prior to the 7 March 2018 election and as a polling agent who identified and reported the stealing of votes by SLPP party members. It adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

2. In this regard, he has provided the following inconsistent evidence as to the difficulties he faced.

3. Firstly, he has provided the following inconsistent evidence as to when and how threats were made on his life due to his political activity:

   ·     In his application he referred to being a target of SLPP supporters and that several attempts were made on his life by SLPP PRO, [Mr C].

   ·     At the Department interview he said he was not subject to any harm or mistreatment in Sierra Leone. He confirmed he was not physically assaulted but there were arguments which they called friendly fire which happened from time to time with SLPP supporters. He said he received threats as that is very common in Africa and the SLPP used to say they should be afraid when they, the APC, don’t win the election and they will be tortured and there will be no peace. He said apart from verbal exchanges nothing else happened to him in Sierra Leone. He was repeatedly asked as to whether anything else happened and he did not add anything further until the Department questioned his evidence that he had said in contrast in his application for the visa that several attempts were made on his life. He then added that after the election on 7 March 2018, but before he departed [in] March 2018, people would throw stones on his roof and throw stones and break the glass of the windows and then he argued that the throwing of stones was an attempt on his life. When the delegate questioned why he had not mentioned this previously, he said the delegate’s questioning jogged his memory.

   In his statutory declaration he explained this inconsistency and said that attempts were not made on his life but he did receive threats which he understand to be threats against his life and referred to comments by the SLPP supporters that he wouldn’t be allowed to live in the country if the APC lost the election. He then noted that at the Department  interview he referred to rocks being thrown at his home as attempts n his life and how it is seen that a threat on one’s life is an attempt on their life.

4. The Tribunal does not accept this response and that as outlined in his statutory declaration as it is of the view if threats were made on his life, he would be consistent about this and how they happened and he perceived them and not only raise it when the concern was raised by the Department at interview. Further, in contrast, at the Tribunal hearing he did not refer to rocks being thrown at his home at all which the Tribunal views as of further concern if he perceived them as threats to his life as he stated at the Department interview. The Tribunal is of the view if the applicant faced threats to his life, he would be able to provide consistent evidence as to these, particularly when or if the rocks were thrown at his home, and particularly if he was present in Sierra Leone at the time and how he perceived the verbal threats. This undermines that he faced the difficulties he claims and adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

5. Further, in contrast to his claim at the Department interview that there was no physical altercation with SLPP members and supporters while campaigning prior to the 7 March 2018 election, in his statutory declaration to the Tribunal he said there were altercations between the SLPP and APC and these could either be physical or verbal, but they tried to avoid any physical altercation. He stated and confirmed at the Tribunal hearing that there were not only verbal threats between the APC and SLPP members while campaigning before the election but physical fights and altercations. He said these happened mostly when he undertook outreach, but as he was not muscular, he ran away. The Tribunal is of the view if the applicant faced physical altercations, albeit where he ran away, he would have referred to these when repeatedly asked at the Department interview as to the difficulties faced. This undermines that he faced the difficulties he claims and adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

6. Further, despite being asked at the Department interview as to the difficulties he faced repeatedly and whether he had anything to add, he only mentioned for the first time in his statutory declaration submitted to the Tribunal of August 2022 that there was a person when he was in [City 1] who he had an argument with about the trend of the election who became very upset when he, the applicant, told him his agents were ballot stuffing. The applicant claims this person said the applicant’s claims were baseless and to be careful. He also referred to this event at the Tribunal hearing saying after the election on 7 March 2022 and before he departed he went to [City 1] and he saw a member of the SLPP and told him about the ballot stuffing which he said was unfair, and in response the SLPP member said “Be careful with what you are saying”. The applicant said the SLPP member said “You are a little fly that can easily be squashed”. He said nothing further happened until he departed as after that he was involved in sport preparing for the Commonwealth Games. He said all the threats he received were from random SLPP supporters. Later when concerns were raised, he said and later confirmed, in contrast to his previous evidence to the Tribunal, that it was [Mr C] who threatened him in the post 7 March 2018 incident at [City 1] when he raised the ballot stuffing with him. This further undermines his claim that he was targeted at [City 1] and adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

7. Further, the Tribunal views the applicant’s changing evidence of [Mr C]’s involvement in personally targeting the applicant to be of concern:

   ·     In his application he referred to being a target of SLPP supporters and that several attempts were made on his life by SLPP PRO, [Mr C].

   ·     At the Department interview he said [Mr C] did not know him personally, that [Mr C] would not deal with him directly but in groups when campaigning. He said he would be part of a group he was threatening when in public. He said he did not think he knew him but he could recognise him and knew where he lived.

   ·     In his detailed statutory declaration he said he suspects that [Mr C] was ultimately responsible for the attacks on his parents as he had always referred to the Youth League as flies of the APC that can be crushed and most of the political violence in Freetown was centred around him. He did not refer to [Mr C] directly threatening him.

   ·     In contrast, at the Tribunal hearing, as noted above, he initially said that the man who threatened him in [City 1] after the election was a random SLPP supporter. After the concern was raised he later indicated that this man was [Mr C] who directly threatened him, in contrast to his earlier evidence.

8. When the Tribunal raised the omissions and inconsistencies in his evidence as outlined above, he referred to it being a long time ago and that some evidence had been consistent over time, including threats being made against his life while conducting outreach for the APC. In hs statutory declaration of August 2022 he said he was helped by an academic not an agent to fill in his application and explained that attempts on his life were not made but he received threats which he understood to be threats against his life. He noted that several times it was said by him by SLPP supporters that if the APC lost the election he would not be allowed to live in the country and he noted that the throwing of stones on a roof is seen in Sierra Leone as a threat to someone’s life. The Tribunal has considered these reasons but it does not consider they explain the repeated inconsistencies in his evidence, as outlined above, particularly as they related to his oral evidence and detailed statutory declaration given after the application for the visa was prepared. It also does not accept that even if he was assisted by a friend rather than a lawyer, he would provide the evidence in his application which leads to the above inconsistencies, particularly as he is well educated.

9. These matters lead the Tribunal to find that the applicant did not face the difficulties he claims prior to his departure from Sierra Leone for any of the reasons he claims. This adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

   Difficulties faced by the applicant’s family after his departure

10. While the applicant has been consistent throughout the process that his brothers were severely beaten, his mother and sister were sexually assaulted and his sister later died, after the release of the final election results and after he had departed Sierra Leone, he has provided the following significantly internally inconsistent evidence and evidence of concern as to this claim.

11. He provided inconsistent evidence as to who led the attack:

    ·     In his application for the visa he said as soon as the election was won by the SLPP in April 2018, the SLPP went to his home to look for him and they were led by [Mr C].

    ·     At the Department interview he said he did not know who was involved in this attack, people from the SLPP came to his home on the night of the April runoff election. He said it was because of the ballot box incident and they pointed the applicant out and he believes with the help of [Mr C] they targeted his home. When pointed out he had said in his application [Mr C] led the attack, he said he had been very upset when he lodged the application because of the death of his sister.

    The Tribunal has difficulty accepting this reason that he would confuse whether the attack was or was not led by [Mr C].

    ·     In the statutory declaration he said unidentified thugs caused the incident. He said thugs entered the family home and sexually assaulted his mother and sister and beat his brothers. He said the house was also vandalised and he can only think it was the SLPP and political revenge as nothing of value was taken. He said he suspected he was the target as his family was told he was lucky he was not around. He said after restoring communication with his brother he was told they made a complaint to the police but the police did nothing. He claims he suspects [Mr C] was responsible for the attack as he often referred to the Youth League as the fly of the APC.

    ·     At the Tribunal hearing he said he received a call from his uncle who lived in [City 1] who told him unidentified SLPP people came to their home, beat his brothers and sexually assaulted his mother and sister. He said he did not know who attacked them. As to why he believes his family was attacked, he referred to his pre‑election outreach activities for the APC, his confrontation on the day of the election due to the stealing of ballot boxes and because of the incident in [City 1]. He confirmed he did not know who attacked his family and said it was random SLPP supporters. Only when inconsistencies were raised, as outlined above, as to the involvement of [Mr C] did he then refer to the confrontation in [City 1] post-election, and he then said this was with [Mr C] and it was a reason why his family were targeted.

12. The Tribunal has considered his reasons for the changing evidence, including that he was assisted only by a friend when completing his application, but it is of the view that if he faced the difficulties he claims he would be consistent as to the involvement of [Mr C], and why, in evidence given to the Department and Tribunal. This adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

13. He provided inconsistent evidence as to his brothers’ and mother’s whereabouts after the attack as follows:

    ·     In his application he said he said he could not contact his mother and brothers as they have gone missing.

    ·     At the Department interview he said his brothers and mother had gone into hiding and were in the provinces and there was no direct network that he could use to communicate with them.

    ·     At the Tribunal hearing he said he was told by his uncle who told him about the event that his brothers ran away and about 5 days later they were found and relocated to [City 1], living with their uncle.

    ·     As raised with the applicant via s 424AA the applicant’s brother gave evidence that straight after the incident he went to live at [City 1] with his uncle and he has stayed there since. He also said they ran straight from the house in [Town 1] to their uncle’s house in [City 1].

14. When the Tribunal raised with him that he had previously said at the Department interview he could not contact his brothers and mother as they were in hiding; he said when the incident happened they ran for their lives and then relocated to [City 1], which does not explain the inconsistency. He later said his application was done by him and a friend, not a lawyer. However, this does not explain his inconsistency in oral evidence given at the Department interview. This adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

15. The Tribunal also views as of concern that the medical certificate he has submitted to support the death of his sister indicates her date of birth as [date], making her [age] at the time of her death; however, at the Department interview, the applicant indicated his sister was [younger] at the time of her attack and death.

16. While not solely determinative, as raised with applicant via s 424AA, of concern is that the applicant’s brother said that after the April 2018 incident SLPP members have come to their home in [City 1] seeking the applicant in April 2018. He said they have not come since. He said he told the applicant of this visit. However, despite repeated questioning of the difficulties he will face on return and has faced, particularly at the Department interview held in May 2018, he did not refer to this subsequent threat. The applicant did not directly address this inconsistency when the matter was raised. This adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

17. These matters lead the Tribunal to find that the applicant’s family did not face the difficulties he claims as a result of his political involvement. It adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

    Credibility summary

18. For all the above reasons, considered cumulatively, the Tribunal does not find the applicant to be a credible, truthful and reliable witness as to why he fears return and the difficulties he claims he faced and will face on return. On the basis of the above cumulative credibility concerns, the Tribunal therefore does not accept that the applicant is a credible witness and cannot be satisfied on the evidence before it that the applicant is a truthful witness as to his claims and why he fears return to Sierra Leone. Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, in light of its findings that he is not a reliable witness, the Tribunal has no confidence in accepting that his evidence about the key aspects of his claims as to his involvement in political activism and the harm he faced was based on personal or actual experiences or for any of the reasons he claims, it and considers it was fabricated to create a claim to be owed protection.

19. In making these findings the Tribunal has allowed for the possibility of discrepancies arising because of genuine lapses of memory, nervousness, fear, and the manner in which responses can differ depending on the nature of and manner in which a question is asked. It is also sensitive to the various cultural differences that can impact on an applicant’s responses to questioning, as discussed in the Tribunal’s ‘Guidance on the Assessment of Credibility’. It does not accept that any of these factors explain or excuse the concerns which, cumulatively, have led it to find that the applicant was not a reliable witness.

20. In making this finding the Tribunal has also considered that some information has been consistent over time, including that he was involved in campaigning for the APC prior to the 7 March 2018 election, he was threatened by members of the SLPP, his brothers were beaten and his mother and sister sexually assaulted whereupon his sister later died from the injuries sustained, he identified SLPP members ballot stuffing or trying to falsely influence the election outcome while acting as a polling agent on the day of the 7 March 2018 elections and that he joined the Youth League of the SLPP at [College] because of his leadership aspirations and they supported leaders. However, the Tribunal considers that these matters are relatively easy matters to recall, and his consistency in these matters does not outweigh the significant credibility aspects outlined above and does not lead the Tribunal to change its view that the applicant is not a credible witness.

21. In making the finding the Tribunal has considered the evidence of his brother, [Brother A], by telephone. It has noted above the inconsistencies between the applicant’s testimony and that of his brother with regard to his brothers’ whereabouts after the incident and whether there were threats after the April 2018 incident when his family was attacked. Due to these concerns and the significant credibility aspects outlined above with the applicant’s evidence, the evidence of [Brother A] does not lead the Tribunal to change its view that the applicant is not a credible witness.

22. In making this finding the Tribunal has considered the oral evidence of [Mr B]. Of concern is that despite [Mr B]’s claim that he was currently the Secretary of the APC MPs in the current parliament working with the APC MPs, he did not provide information consistent with independent information as to the current number of APC members of parliament. When asked, he said there were 51 APC MPs in the current parliament, whereas, as raised with him and the applicant, via s 424AA, this number is inconsistent with independent information. The information indicates the following:

    The 2021 Freedom House report indicates that ‘[d]uring the 2018 parliamentary elections, the APC retained its majority, winning 68 seats, while the SLPP increased its share to 49 seats. The Coalition for Change won 8 seats, the National Grand Coalition (NGC) took 4, and independents captured the remaining.[2] The Economist Intelligence Unit also reported that ‘[f]ollowing a High Court decision in May 2019 to remove ten APC members of parliament (for allegedly violating electoral law during the election campaign) and replace them with nine SLPP members (with the tenth to be chosen through a by-election), the SLPP is now the largest party in parliament’.[3] A November 2019 statistical factsheet in relation to the members of Sierra Leone’s fifth parliament indicates that at that time, the SLPP held 59 seats in parliament and the APC 57 seats, with one seat in Constituency 110 vacant and subject to a by‑election. Further rerun elections were held in November 2020 and a March 2021 press release by the Parliament of Sierra Leone indicates that the ‘current standings of political parties in Parliament’ were ‘SLPP 59; APC 58; C4C 08; NGC 04; Independent MPs 03; and 14 Paramount Chief Members of Parliament; totalling 146’.[4] In June 2021 it was reported that the SLPP may have lost its majority in parliament after the National Electoral Commission declared an SLPP Member of Parliament the newly elected Paramount Chief of Sambaia Chiefdom.[5] The website for the Parliament of Sierra Leone indicates the APC currently has 59 members of parliament.[6] The information indicates the SLPP has 58 seats following the outcome of a bye election held on 13 July 2022.[7]

    [2] ‘Freedom in the World 2021 - Sierra Leone', Freedom House, 2021, A1, pp.2-3, 20211001084356

    [3] ‘Sierra Leone - Political structure’, The Economist Intelligence Unit, 1 March 2021, 20211116173721

    [4] ‘New Member of Parliament Takes Oath of Office’, Parliament of Sierra Leone, 4 March 2021, 20211117114923

    [5] Freedom House, 'Freedom in the World 2021 - Sierra Leone', 2021, D1, p.7

    [6] The Calabash Newspaper, APC Takes the Lead in Parliament, 15 July 2022 type="1">

    The Tribunal is of the view if the witness is who he claims to be he would have known how many seats the APC had in parliament, at a minimum 58 after the March 2021 by‑elections or 59 after a recent by-election. Due to the above concerns and the significant credibility aspects outlined above with the applicant’s evidence, the evidence of [Mr B] does not lead the Tribunal to change its view that the applicant is not a credible witness.

    In making this finding the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s APC membership card. However, based on the prevalence of document fraud in Sierra Leone,[8] as raised with the applicant at hearing, and on the basis of the applicant’s lack of credibility, the Tribunal places no weight on these letters as evidence of the applicant’s claims and the difficulties he faced.

    [8] DFAT Thematic Report – Economic Community of West Africa dated 3 December 2020 at 5.22

    In making this finding the Tribunal has considered the medical certificate he has submitted to support the death of his sister. As raised with the applicant at the Tribunal hearing, at the Department interview, the applicant indicated his sister was [age] at the time of her attack and death; however, the submitted medical certificate indicates she was born on [date] which would have made her [older] at the time of the claimed attack [in] April 2018 and her claimed death [in] April 2018. On the basis of this concern, the prevalence of document fraud in Sierra Leone, and on the basis of the applicant’s lack of credibility, the Tribunal places no weight on these letters as evidence of the applicant’s claims and the difficulties he faced.

    In making this finding the Tribunal has considered the other articles and country information submitted by the applicant as to the difficulties faced by APC supporters in Sierra Leone. However, based on the Tribunal finding that the applicant lacks credibility, including with regard to his or his uncle’s actual involvement in the APC and the difficulties they faced, the Tribunal does not accept that these articles explain or excuse the concerns which, cumulatively, have led it to find that the applicant was not a reliable witness.

    Therefore, based on the applicant’s lack of credibility, and on the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant was ever involved with or had any political profile as a community or political activist or campaigner or polling agent with the APC or its associated student organisation or Youth League as member or supporter or [official position]. It follows it does not accept he joined the APC while at [College] and became for approximately 2 years [official position] of its student union. It follows it does not accept he was involved with the APC prior to or after the election on 7 March 2018 until his departure [in] March 2018 including campaigning for the APC candidates, conducting any outreach, teaching people about how to vote and acting as a polling agent on the 7 March 2018 election. It follows it does not accept that at any time when he was in Sierra Leone he received threats or insults or had any verbal or physical altercations where he ran away from SLPP candidates as he was campaigning for the APC or as an APC member or advocate or polling agent. It follows it does not accept he was ever threatened with harm, that he would be killed if the SLPP won the election or that rocks were thrown at his house or that he had any altercations or disagreements with [Mr C] or any SLPP member or supporter including at [City 1] after the election or when he identified SLPP candidates stealing ballot boxes or trying to fraudulently change the result of the election.

    Based on the applicant’s lack of credibility it follows it does not accept that after the election result was announced in April 2018, his brothers, mother and sister faced the difficulties he claims at the hands of unidentified thugs or SLPP supporters or [Mr C] because of his involvement in the APC or its student union in the manner he claims. It follows it does not accept any threats were made against his family, that rocks were thrown at them or his family faced any of the difficulties he claims because of his political involvement and activities with the APC or due to any disagreement in [City 1] or for any of the reasons he claims.

    It follows it does not accept his friends or uncle or family or anyone else has told him not to return as the SLPP supporters or anyone else has vowed to kill, harm or eliminate him because of his political opinion or activities or that SLPP supporters have come looking for him since his departure.

    It does not accept that any of the difficulties he claims occurred because of his sporting profile. While he has not directly claimed this, he has indicated that his sporting achievements gave him a further profile while campaigning for the APC. It also does not accept he faced any difficulties as a result of any tribal affiliation or violence.

    It follows, based on his lack of credibility, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant did not return to Sierra Leone after the 2018 Commonwealth Games because he feared for his life or he feared he would be attacked, harmed or killed because the SLPP won the elections and he is an APC supporter, member and activist, due to an imputed political opinion or as a result of tribal and political violence or for any of the reasons he claims.

    It follows that the Tribunal does not accept he was or is of any interest to any group due to his or any imputed political opinion or tribal association or violence or for any of the reasons he claims or that he held or holds any concerns for his safety or fears being harmed for any of the reasons he claims.

    Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to Sierra Leone and meet the refugee protection provisions of the Act, and does he meet the protection obligations under the complementary protection provisions of the Act?

    Political and imputed political opinion

    Based on its findings as to the applicant’s credibility and findings of fact outlined in the paragraphs under the heading Credibility summary the Tribunal has found that the applicant was not and never has been involved with the APC as a member or [official position] of the student union of the APC, that he never campaigned for the APC prior to the 2018 election or acted as a party polling agent or that he and his family faced any of the difficulties he claims at the hands of the SLPP leaders or supporters, [Mr C] or anyone else acting on their behalf. It does not accept he was ever threatened with harm, physically attacked or his family were physically attacked, abused and sexually assaulted because of any political association with the APC. The Tribunal has rejected in its entirety the difficulties the applicant claims happened to him and his family in Sierra Leone as a result of the applicant’s political profile and activities as well as his sporting profile. It follows it does not accept that the SLPP supporters or anyone else, including [Mr C], had any interest in the applicant prior to or at the time he left Sierra Leone up to his departure [in] March 2018, for the reasons he claims, or will have in the future, based on his claimed political membership and activities or any imputed political opinion or tribal association or violence. It follows it does not accept he will or his family will be threatened, harmed, assaulted or abused were he to return to Sierra Leone.

    As the Tribunal has found that the applicant was never involved in the APC or its associated student union, it follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will participate in the APC or the student union in any way on return or will suffer persecution by being prevented from being involved. It therefore does not accept, as he has not been involved in the past, that he will continue to be involved in the APC or its student union or carry out any political activities as a member or supporter or advocate for the APC and/or its student union or Youth League were he to return to Sierra Leone.

    It follows were the applicant to return to Sierra Leone that it does not accept he and his family will be targeted by members of the SLPP, the government, [Mr C] or anyone else because of any political activity he claims he had in the past. It follows it does not accept he will be arrested, killed, harassed, threatened, attacked, beaten, tortured or unable to earn a livelihood.

    It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution involving serious harm were he to return to Sierra Leone in the reasonably foreseeable future due to his political opinion as a supporter of the APC or its associated student organisation or Youth League or as a member or campaigner or as a polling agent with the APC or as he questioned SLPP supporters about vote rigging or due to any leadership role with the APC or its associated student organization or due to any imputed political opinion. Similarly, based on the findings above and on the information before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm on his return to Sierra Leone due to his political opinion as a supporter of the APC or its associated student organisation or as a member or campaigner or as a polling agent with the APC or as he questioned SLPP supporters about vote rigging or due to any leadership role with the APC or its associated student organization or due to any political opinion.

    Tribal Violence

    Based on the findings above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution involving serious harm were he to return to Sierra Leone in the reasonably foreseeable future due to any tribal association or violence. Similarly, based on the findings above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm on his return to Sierra Leone due any tribal association or violence

    Non-returning member of Sierra Leone Commonwealth Games team

    Notwithstanding the above, the Tribunal accepts the applicant will return to Sierra Leone having not returned with other members of the 2018 Commonwealth Games team which travelled to and from Australia in 2018. As raised with the applicant there is no information to suggest that members of the Sierra Leone Commonwealth Games team may face harm on return to Sierra Leone because they remained in Australia at the completion of the Games.[9]

    [9] 'Sierra Leone: SLE CI180507122758089 - Athletes overstaying abroad', Country of Origin Information Services Section (COISS), 9 May 2018, CR837DFFB138. COISS consulted CISNET and Internet sites - including news websites (including allAfrica, Awoko, Concord Times, Politico SL, The New Rising Sun and The Patriotic Vanguard) and Internet search engines - in English. 2 ‘Athletes' accreditation revoked’ 2006, The Sydney Morning Herald, 26 March, CX157636; Purtill C 2014, ‘When athletes go missing’, GlobalPost, 18 April, on PRI [Public Radio International] website, CX1B9ECAB13160; ‘Sierra Leonean scouts 'missing' in Sweden’ 2011, BBC [British Broadcasting Corporation] News, 8 August, CXCB3E63421471

    It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution involving serious harm were he to return to Sierra Leone in the reasonably foreseeable future as a high profile sportsman who did not return to Sierra Leone with the Commonwealth Games team and remained in Australia. Similarly, based on the findings above and on the information before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm on his return to Sierra Leone as a high profile sportsman who did not return to Sierra Leone with the Commonwealth Games team and remained in Australia.

    Conclusion regarding the refugee criteria

    The Tribunal has considered whether the combination of each of the individual claims raised by the applicant would together create a real chance of him being subjected to serious harm in Sierra Leone in the reasonably foreseeable future. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance the applicant would face serious harm for these reasons, if he returns in the reasonably foreseeable future. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal therefore is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

    Conclusion regarding complementary protection

    The Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant is eligible for complementary protection. The Tribunal has considered whether the combination of each of the individual claims raised by the applicant would together create a real risk of the applicant being subjected to significant harm in Sierra Leone in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Sierra Leone, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A), on the basis of his claims considered individually or cumulatively.

    The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

    CONCLUSION

    For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

    Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).

    There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy any of the criteria in s 36(2).

    DECISION

    The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

    Gabrielle Cullen
    Member

    
    

    APPENDIX – RELEVANT LAW

    The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (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.

    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:

    (c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

    (d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

    (a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

    (b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

    (a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

    (b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

    (c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

    (d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

    (e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

    but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:

    (a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

    (b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

    …

    5H    Meaning of refugee

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:

    (a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or

    (b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.

    Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.

    …

    5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

    (a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

    (b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

    Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

    (2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

    Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

    (3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

    (a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

    (b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

    (c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

    (i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;

    (ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

    (iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

    (iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

    (v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

    (vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

    (4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

    (a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

    (b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

    (c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

    (5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

    (a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

    (b)     significant physical harassment of the person;

    (c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

    (d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

    (6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

    5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

    For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

    (a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

    (b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

    (i)the first person has ever experienced; or

    (ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

    where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

    Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

    5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family

    For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

    (a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

    (b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

    (c)     any of the following apply:

    (i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

    (ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

    (iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

    (d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

    5LA Effective protection measures

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

    (a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

    (i)the relevant State; or

    (ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

    (b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

    (2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

    (a)     the person can access the protection; and

    (b)     the protection is durable; and

    (c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

    …

    36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

    …

    (2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

    (a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or

    (aa)  a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

    (c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

    (2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

    (a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

    (b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

    (c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

    (d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

    (e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

    (2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

    (a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

    …