1821506 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Ghana, sought a protection visa, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution due to religious conversion from Christianity to Islam and pressure to maintain a family shrine, which included a fear of physical assault and death for refusing his birthright as the designated family priest. The respondent was the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs. The matter was before the Tribunal for reconsideration.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee due to a well-founded fear of persecution involving "serious harm" as defined by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). If not found to be a refugee, the Tribunal was required to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing the applicant met the complementary protection criterion, meaning a real risk of suffering "significant harm."

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), Ministerial Direction No. 84, and relevant guidelines and country information. It accepted the applicant's nationality and that he did not have a right to reside in any country other than Ghana, and that Ghana was his receiving country. The Tribunal interpreted "serious harm" to include threats to life or liberty, significant physical harassment or ill-treatment, and significant economic hardship or denial of basic services that threaten subsistence. "Significant harm" for complementary protection purposes was defined to include arbitrary deprivation of life, the death penalty, torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. The Tribunal also considered the provisions regarding internal relocation and the availability of state protection.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Act.