1824617 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Nigerian national. The applicant claimed to be a member of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), a separatist organisation, and asserted that this membership placed him at risk of persecution and harm, including potential prosecution and death, if returned to Nigeria. The applicant also claimed to have experienced harm in Nigeria due to his alleged involvement with the IPOB. The decision under review affirmed the refusal of the protection visa.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding his membership in and activities with the IPOB, and whether, on the basis of his accepted claims, he met the criteria for the grant of a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion and membership of a particular social group, and whether there was a real chance of him suffering significant harm upon return to Nigeria.

The Tribunal found significant credibility concerns with the applicant's claims. Despite claiming to be a member of the IPOB in Nigeria, the applicant stated he had no involvement with the active IPOB movement in Australia, which the Tribunal considered implausible for someone genuinely involved in such an organisation. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies and a lack of detail in the applicant's responses, and found that his claimed position as a public sector employee was inconsistent with active involvement in a proscribed organisation. While acknowledging the applicant's English language difficulties, the Tribunal concluded that these did not fully explain the credibility issues raised. The Tribunal also considered the DFAT Country Information Report for Nigeria and noted the ease with which fraudulent documents could be obtained. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was involved with the IPOB, had attended any meetings or protests, or had been present at any events where authorities raided and harmed individuals. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of suffering significant harm or had a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason set out in section 5J(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).