1821187 (Refugee)

The applicant, a man from Ghana, sought a protection visa, claiming he feared persecution due to his homosexuality. The dispute centred on whether his claims of past persecution and fear of future harm in Ghana were credible and established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The case was heard by Roslyn Smidt.

The court was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which involves having a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Alternatively, the court had to consider if the applicant met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Ghana, there is a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the applicant's claims, including discrepancies regarding his employment history, the timing of his relocation to Accra, and the details of his past relationships and experiences of persecution. Specifically, the court noted that the applicant had named his wife as an emergency contact upon arrival in Australia, which appeared inconsistent with his claims of being shunned by his family due to his sexuality. The court applied the principles outlined in sections 5J, 5K, and 5L of the Migration Act regarding well-founded fear of persecution and membership of a particular social group, as well as the definitions of significant harm in sections 36(2A) and 36(2B). Due to the identified credibility issues and inconsistencies, the court concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.