1820125 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual from Sierra Leone. The applicant claimed to fear harm upon return to his home country due to his past support for the All People's Congress (APC) party, which had lost power in the 2018 election. He alleged that his uncle, a prominent APC supporter, had been attacked and his home burnt down by supporters of the winning Sierra Leone People's Party (SLPP). The applicant asserted that he had assisted his uncle in campaigning for the APC and feared he would be targeted by SLPP supporters upon his return. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed the delegate's decision to affirm the refusal of the protection visa.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under s.36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and whether he was eligible for complementary protection under s.36(2A) of the Act. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if there was a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm in Sierra Leone in the reasonably foreseeable future, either individually or cumulatively, based on his claims of political persecution. The Tribunal also considered the possibility of ministerial intervention under s.417 of the Act, particularly in light of potential serious, ongoing, and irreversible harm to his Australian citizen daughter.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a real chance of suffering serious harm if returned to Sierra Leone. While acknowledging the political tensions and past incidents of violence between the APC and SLPP, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant's individual circumstances, or the cumulative effect of his claims, met the threshold for protection obligations. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the evidence and did not accept that the applicant would be targeted to the extent of facing serious harm. However, the Tribunal did acknowledge the applicant's relationship with his Australian citizen daughter and the potential for serious, ongoing, and irreversible harm to her if the applicant were removed, which could be a matter for ministerial intervention.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for protection under s.36(2)(a) or complementary protection under s.36(2A). The decision noted that the Minister retained discretionary power to intervene under s.417 of the Act, particularly concerning compassionate circumstances involving harm to an Australian citizen.