1824029 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming a well-founded fear of harm in Nigeria due to his Igbo ethnicity, Christian religion, and perceived support for Biafran separatism, fearing persecution by Boko Haram and the Nigerian military. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The matter was heard by the Tribunal, comprising Dr Colin Huntly (Presiding) and Peter Katsambanis.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had a cognisable, well-founded fear of harm in Nigeria, either currently or in the reasonably foreseeable future, that would engage Australia's international protection obligations under section 36 of the Act. This involved assessing the applicant's claims against the statutory criteria, including the definition of a refugee and the concept of significant harm, as well as considering the applicant's travel history and the credibility of his evidence. The Tribunal also had regard to its obligations under sections 104 and 423A of the Act concerning the correctness of information provided by applicants and the drawing of adverse inferences from unexplained omissions.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. It found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act. This conclusion was reached after considering the applicant's original claims, which were found to contain vague and inconsistent evidence, raising credibility issues. The Tribunal noted the applicant's declarations regarding assistance in completing his application, his travel history, and his reasons for leaving Nigeria, including alleged psychological harm and trauma due to tribal and political conflict, and the inability to access protection from Nigerian authorities. The Tribunal also considered the possibility of relocation within Nigeria or to a third country, as well as the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm that would engage Australia's protection obligations.