1823125 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Ghana, sought a protection visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant qualified as a refugee or, alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds to believe he would suffer significant harm if returned to Ghana. The applicant claimed he feared persecution due to his refusal to assume the role of a "concoction maker" within his tribal community, a role he believed was inconsistent with his Christian faith. The matter was before the Tribunal for reconsideration.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues: first, whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, based on a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion; and second, if not, whether he met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa), meaning there was a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his return to Ghana. The Tribunal also had to consider the meaning of "significant harm" as defined in section 36(2A) and the circumstances under which a real risk of such harm would not be found, as outlined in section 36(2B).

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding his refusal to undertake the tribal role, which involved practices he believed conflicted with his Christian faith. It also took into account the country information provided by the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as mandated by Ministerial Direction No. 84. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a). However, it found that the applicant did satisfy the criterion for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa).

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.