1829915 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Christian man from Ghana, sought a protection visa in Australia. He claimed that he feared persecution if returned to Ghana because he was being pressured by village "kingmakers" to become a chief, a role that would require him to perform rituals contrary to his religious beliefs, including animal sacrifice and pouring libation. He also claimed that his refusal to accept chieftaincy would lead to his wife divorcing him, his uncle's fate of death, and his own potential suicide. The applicant stated that the Ghanaian authorities could not protect him from the kingmakers, and that internal relocation within Ghana would be futile as he would still be found.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, as a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa), for complementary protection due to a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Ghana. This involved determining if the applicant's fear of harm from the kingmakers constituted persecution for a Convention reason, if state protection was unavailable, and if internal relocation was a viable option.

The court considered country information from sources such as the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and academic research on chieftaincy in Ghana. It found that there was no recent evidence of tribal retribution against those refusing chieftaincy positions and that academic sources suggested individuals were free to refuse such roles without penalty. The court also noted a lack of evidence supporting the applicant's claims of relentless pursuit by the kingmakers, the alleged circumstances of his uncle's death, or general persecution of Christians in Ghana. While acknowledging the applicant's mental health treatment for depression and anxiety, the court found the medical evidence insufficient to establish a compromised ability to recall events or a risk of self-harm upon return.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not face a real chance of serious harm, nor a real risk of significant harm, if returned to Ghana. Consequently, the applicant was not considered a refugee under section 5H or to fall within Australia's protection obligations under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act.