1821738 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant a protection visa to a citizen of Ghana. The applicant claimed to be the presumptive heir to a tribal chieftaincy and feared persecution if forced to accept the position, due to his religious objections to certain traditional practices and the risk of abduction by kingmakers. The applicant had previously been the subject of attempted abductions and had been forced to relocate within Ghana and keep his whereabouts secret.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically membership of a particular social group. The Tribunal was required to consider whether the applicant's fear of being forced into a tribal leadership role, against his religious beliefs and in circumstances involving attempted abductions, constituted persecution for which Australia had protection obligations. This involved assessing the nature of the threat, the applicant's specific circumstances, and the availability and effectiveness of state protection in Ghana, particularly in relation to customary law and tribal succession matters.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's fear was most appropriately characterised as a fear of persecution for the essential and significant reason that he was a member of a particular social group: "tribal chieftaincy recusants in Ghana opposed to instalment by kingmakers on religious grounds." The Tribunal found that members of this group shared common innate or immutable characteristics. It accepted the applicant's claims as credible, finding that he had been targeted for harm, including attempted abductions, and that he would be unable to live openly in Ghana without fear of persecution. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had reported the matter to the Ghanaian police but had received no protection, as it was considered an inter-tribal affair, indicating a lack of effective state protection in this context.

The Tribunal remitted the decision under review with a direction that the applicant satisfied section 36(2)(a) of the Act, meaning he was found to meet the criteria for a protection visa.