1830926 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a national of Ghana. The applicant claimed to be an albino and asserted that, due to this characteristic, he faced discrimination, ridicule, violence, and threats of ritual sacrifice in Ghana. He further alleged that he had been kidnapped with the intent of being used in a ritual sacrifice and had been forced to move frequently to avoid harm. The applicant contended that these experiences meant he could not safely return to Ghana and that he met the criteria for a Protection visa under sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had established that he was an albino, and if so, whether he had demonstrated that he would face persecution or significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of returning to Ghana. Specifically, the court was required to determine if persons with albinism in Ghana constituted a "particular social group" for the purposes of refugee claims, and whether the applicant's specific circumstances, including the alleged kidnapping and ongoing threats, met the threshold for protection under the Act. The court also considered the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding his travel to Australia and the circumstances of his arrival.

The court reviewed the evidence presented, including country information regarding the treatment of albinos in Ghana and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) region. It noted that while albinism could be a characteristic defining a particular social group, the delegate had not been satisfied that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to establish he was an albino, particularly in light of his claims of normal eyesight and the absence of medical documentation. Furthermore, the delegate found the alleged kidnapping incident lacked credibility due to the limited details provided and the applicant's subsequent ability to live in Ghana for some time. The delegate also expressed doubts about the plausibility of the applicant's account of his travel to Australia and his arrival arrangements.

The decision under review was remitted.