1834198 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant a protection visa to an applicant from Cameroon. The applicant claimed to be a member of the Social Democratic Front (SDF), an opposition political party, and that he had participated in an anti-government demonstration in 2008, after which he feared persecution by the Cameroonian authorities. He alleged that his relative had been tortured and killed by police, and that he had been in hiding for eight years before departing Cameroon.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations due to a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. This involved assessing the applicant's credibility and the veracity of his claims regarding his political activities, his fear of persecution, and his alleged need to be in hiding.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be inconsistent and lacking in credibility. It noted that the applicant had obtained a Cameroonian passport in 2016 and departed Cameroon without being stopped or questioned by the authorities, which was inconsistent with his claim of being sought by the police. Furthermore, the Tribunal found it implausible that he had been in hiding for eight years while operating a business, marrying, and obtaining official documents, including a passport and marriage certificate, and departing Cameroon as part of an official government delegation. The Tribunal also found inconsistencies in his claims regarding his brother-in-law's death and his knowledge of his travel arrangements to Australia.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under either the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.