1834779 (Refugee)

1834779 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 6936 (12 December 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1834779
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Cameroon
MEMBER:Christopher Smolicz
DATE:12 December 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 12 December 2019 at 1:22pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Cameroon – imputed political opinion – member of the Social Democratic Front (SDF) – attended anti-government demonstration – particular social group – family – inconsistent evidence – credibility issues – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 5K, 5L, 5LA, 36, 65, 424AA, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 16 November 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Cameroon, applied for the visa on 21 November 2016.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a) of the Act. In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1) of the Act, a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA of the Act, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs (the Department), and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds because of his:
·     actual or imputed political opinion
·     membership of a particular social group, consisting of family
·     race.
Background
The applicant is [age] years old. He was born in Yaounde, Centre Region, Cameroon. He is from the Bamileke ethnic group and is a Catholic. He speaks, reads and writes French.
The applicant declared that from March 2008 to August 2016 he was living and working in [Country 1]. He entered into a de facto relationship in December 2012 and has a son born in [Country 1] in [year] and daughter born in Yaounde in [year]. His partner and children live in Cameroon. He declared that he has a [Relative A] who lives in [City 1], Australia. He has one sister who is living in Cameroon and another [relative] in [Country 1].
The applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision for the purpose of the review application. According to the decision he applied for [a permanent visa] in October 2013 and the application was refused in January 2015.
[In] October 2016 the applicant arrived in Australia on a temporary short stay visa to [attend a Field 1 meeting] held in [City 1]. He travelled on a Republic of Cameroon passport issued [in] 2015. The passport remains valid until [2020]. The Tribunal has assessed the applicant’s claims against Cameroon as the receiving country.
Summary of substantive claims
He provided the following brief information in his application for protection in support of his claims.
He is a member of the Social Democratic Front (SDF) opposition political party. He left Cameroon because he took part in an anti-goverenment demonstration in 2008. He was protesting because the constitution was changed to enable the president to remain in power indefinitely. Many of the members were arrested, some are in jail and more than 2000 people were killed. He was hit in the head by the police during the demonstration, seriously wounded and knocked unconscious. He went to his uncle’s house to seek help. He tried to escape from the police at his parent’s house. He fears he will be arrested and killed if he returns to Cameroon.
The authorities are unable to protect him because he is a member of the SDF who took part in the 2008 demonstration.
He provided copies of the following documents in support of his application:
·     SDF membership card issued in June 2005
·     Correspondence in the English language dated [in] June 2005 titled ‘Attestation of Activist’ issued by the President of the SDF Electoral District of Yaounde claiming the applicant has been a member of the [named] cell since [May] 2004.
·     Document written in the French language titled ‘Convocation’ (summons) dated [in] 2008 issued by the [police] requesting the applicant to present himself at the police station in the [specified district] [in] March 2008 to answer various charges.
The applicant took part in a protection interview with the Department. The applicant’s evidence is detailed in the delegate’s decision.
Tribunal hearing
The Tribunal questioned the applicant about his political involvement in Cameroon.
The applicant said he became a member of the SDF in May 2004. He took part in a demonstration on 23 February 2008 in Douala because the president was going to change the constitution to enable him to remain in power. The police and army attended, surrounded the zone and started to beat the crowed. He was knocked unconscious for a number of hours. Other people were wounded and killed. He woke up four to five days later and went to his uncle’s house. He subsequently returned to Yaounde and realised the police were arresting SDF leaders and were targeting his [Relative A] because he was a youth leader. The police realised they could not get his [Relative A] so they issued an arrest warrant to get other members. He claims a lot of SDF members were arrested and sent to prison. His family home was trashed. He escaped to [Country 1] with his mother. He continued to live in [Country 1] until 2016 when he came to Australia.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant about his movements from 2008 to 2016. In particular the Tribunal referred the applicant to the delegate’s decision and noted that according to the stamps in his passport he had travelled to Cameroon a number of times prior to his departure to Australia. The applicant maintained that he lived and worked in [Country 1] for eight years and his family are now in Cameroon. His partner was not involved in politics therefore it was safer for her to return to Cameroon. He returned to Cameroon for the first time [in] December 2015 for [number] days. He rented a house for his family in Cameron.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant about the documents provided in support of his application. The applicant said he does not have his original SDF membership card. A friend asked the SDF lawyer for a copy. The lawyer also gave him the copy of the convocation. The lawyer was representing all SDF members and he was able to obtain the documents before he travelled to Australia. He does not have any other documents because they were destroyed when his family home was trashed.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant about the attestation of activism letter and what purpose it served. The applicant said that it was given to all new members to prove that they were a member of the party. The Tribunal asked the applicant why the attestation of activism letter was written in the English language. The applicant said that Cameroon was a bilingual country. The Tribunal asked the applicant how the authorities become aware he was involved in the demonstration in February 2008. The applicant said that the police went to the SDF office and obtained a list of all the members. The Tribunal asked the applicant how he knew that is what happened. The applicant said a friend told him.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant about how he was able to obtain the visa to travel to Australia in 2016. The applicant said that he came across a friend who was in the SDF. His friend had a friend whose father helped him leave the country. He paid some money and the person took care of everything. No information was given to him about how he would leave Cameroon and he just asked for a visa. He only found out the day before the plane left that he would be part of a [government delegation]. The applicant said he has not [qualified in Field 1] and did not have anything to do with the [Field 1 Meeting].
The Tribunal referred the applicant to the delegate’s decision and noted that he had provided conflicting information about his political involvement in Cameroon. Specifically, the Tribunal noted that on 10 December 2010 the applicant gave sworn evidence by telephone from [Country 1] before the RRT in support of his [Relative A’s] protection visa application.[1]
[1] RRT case [number]
During the RRT hearing the applicant declared that his [Relative A] was [an office bearer] of the youth wing of the SDF and that he (the applicant) was not involved in the SDF. When questioned about the demonstration in Cameroon in February 2008 the applicant said he went from Yaounde to Douala with his [Relative A] and the police came and made many arrests, he and his [Relative A] escaped, some were caught and beaten, he was not. Afterwards the police were looking for his [Relative A] but were not looking for him.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s evidence was inconsistent with his claims for protection, where he claims he was a member of the SDF who was wanted by the authorities.
In response the applicant said that there must have been an interpreting error when he gave his evidence before the RRT in 2010. He maintained that he did not say the police were after him at that time because they were first looking for the SDF leaders. Subsequently the police would systematically look for other members when they could not secure the leaders.
The Tribunal informed the applicant that it also had a copy of correspondence dated 30 December 2010 which was written by his [Relative A]’s lawyers in support of his [Relative A]’s review application before the RRT. The letter specifically refers to the evidence the applicant gave during his [Relative A]’s protection visa hearing before the RRT. Specifically, the lawyers wrote:
Although he [applicant name] is not active in politics himself, [the applicant] was able to confirm that that [Relative A] is and held a position as [office bearer] of the youth section of the SDF. [The applicant] confirmed that [Relative A] was prominent politically but due to his own lack of involvement in politics he was not able to provide details of what was involved…[the applicant] stated that although he is not active politically he will not return to Cameroon through fear of persecution for imputed political opinion because of his family, viz his father and his [Relative A].
The Tribunal put this information to the applicant for his comments and response pursuant to s.424AA the Act. The applicant did not require further time to respond to the information. The applicant maintained that there must have been an interpreting error about the meaning of being politically active. He maintained that his [Relative A] was a leader and needed to assist in big conferences and he (the applicant) did not do that type of important work. He said that only the leaders were privy to that information.
The Tribunal noted that his [Relative A] was a resident of Australia. The Tribunal questioned the applicant if his [Relative A] would be giving evidence in support of his application. The applicant said that his [Relative A] works in [location] and it was difficult for him to give evidence. The Tribunal clarified with the applicant whether he wanted his [Relative A] to give evidence but it was not possible due to his work commitments. The applicant said he did not ask his [Relative A] to give evidence in support of his protection visa application because he did not want to distract him.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant about the timing of his travel to Australia. Specifically the Tribunal questioned the applicant if he travelled to Australia because he feared harm or because he had connections and could arrange to travel to the [Field 1 Meeting].
The applicant said it was not the first time he tried to leave Africa. The applicant said that his [Relative A] had applied for a [visa] from Australia in the past to try and help him escape but it was refused. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he knew why it was refused. The applicant said he was not sure but thought it was because he did not provide enough evidence.
The applicant said his passport was issued in [Country 1] in October 2015. He returned to Cameroon to find out if there was someone who could help him leave the country. He met a friend in February 2016 who assisted him. He paid them money and gave them his documents. He was not told which country he would be travelling to. The applicant maintained that he did not know that he was traveling to Australia. He claims it was not until [date] October 2016 that he found out he was traveling to Australia and the plane left [the next day]. The Tribunal observed that it seemed like quite a big coincidence that he would end up traveling to Australia, the country where his [Relative A] was living.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant how he was able to depart Yaounde International airport and travel to Australia with no problems from the authorities. The applicant maintained that each time he crossed the border he had to plan the trip in advance with the assistance of a friend whom he paid money to. He would be taken through a different channel avoiding normal security and his friend would arrange for his passport to be stamped.
The Tribunal noted that the delegate had regard to country information which suggested that document fraud was prevalent in Cameroon and that it had to exercise caution in assessing the documents he had provided in support of his application. The Tribunal noted that he did not refer to his SDF membership when he gave evidence in support of his [Relative A]’s application. He did not say he was knocked unconscious or summonsed by the authorities. The applicant maintained that he could not recall what evidence he gave in support of his [Relative A]’s applicant and it must have been a misunderstanding.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if his [Relative A] had travelled back to Cameroon since he arrived in Australia. The applicant said his [Relative A] travelled back to Cameroon for a visit a few months ago. The Tribunal asked the applicant why his [Relative A] would return to Cameroon if he feared for his life. The applicant said that his [Relative A] was no longer a Cameroonian citizen and had given up his nationality.
The Tribunal noted that his [Relative A] came to Australia in July 2008. His protection visa application was successful but his claims were not identical. The Tribunal noted that it must assess his claims looking to the reasonably foreseeable future and that 11 years had passed since his problems started in Cameroon. The applicant maintained that this situation in Cameroon was still dangerous for him especially since the October 2018 elections. He claims that his name is on a ‘black list’ and he cannot escape sentence.
The applicant said he did not have any involvement in the SDF since he commenced living in [Country 1] because he did not want to be imputed with a political opinion because [Country 1] was close to Cameroon.
He said that the Cameroon Renaissance Movement (CRM) – Mouvement pour la Renaissance du Cameroun – opposition candidate Maurice Kamto was successful, was detained for nine months and was only recently set free. The applicant said that Kamto is from the Bamileke tribe and his arrest has started a tribal war between the Beti and Bamileke people. He claims the Bamileke people have been chased out of the southern part of Cameroon by the Beti people who want to take over the area.
Country Information
The Tribunal has had regard to country information and notes that Cameroon has a multiparty system of government, but the Cameroon People’s Democratic Movement (CPDM) has remained in power since its creation in 1985 and in practice its president Paul Biya retains the power and control of the legislation.[2]
[2] USDOS Cameroon 2018 Human Rights Report
The SDF was launched as political party in early 1990 and was legalised in 1991. It is one of the most active opposition parties in Cameroon.
Some sources state that the party's support is concentrated in western Cameroon.[3]
[3] US 8 Apr. 2011, sect. 3; PHW 2011, 227; Political Parties of the World 2009, 100
According to Political Parties of the World, the North West Province is ‘the most anti-[President Paul] Biya part of the Anglophone area of Cameroon’.[4] Freedom House describes the SDF as a party that is led by Anglophones.[5] According to International Crisis Group, the party is associated with the Anglophone minority in Cameroon, but rejected the idea of independence for the minority.[6] The Tribunal has had regard to the country information and finds it unusual that the applicant, a Francophone, would support the SDF.
[4] ibid
[5] 2011
[6] 25 May 2010, 18-19

The International Crisis Group states, however, that the SDF has also obtained support in the rest of the country.[7] The SDF is particularly present in the North West Province.[8] Political Parties of the World states that the North West Province is the only province in which Ni John Fru Ndi, leader of the SDF, won a majority of the votes in the 2004 presidential elections.[9] Radio France Internationale specified that, during the October 2011 presidential elections, Ni John Fru Ndi won 54 per cent of the votes [translation] ‘in the Anglophone North West,’ the only region in the country in which Biya did not dominate.[10] It was also in that province that the party won 19 of its 22 seats in the National Assembly in 2002, and 11 of the 20 North West Province seats in 2007.[11]
[7] 25 May 2010, 18
[8] ibid; PHW 2011, 227; Political Parties of the World 2009, 100
[9] ibid
[10] 22 October 2011
[11] Political Parties of the World 2009, 99-100
In relation to the February 2008 anti-government demonstrations the Tribunal has had regard to the following information, which was also referred to by the delegate:
On February 13, in the Bessengue neighbourhood the Douala GMI disrupted an SDF march to protest against constitutional reform. The police used water cannon, trucks, and tear gas to disperse demonstrators in addition to beatings with rubber batons.
During the February riots, which spread to 31 localities including Yaounde and Douala, and the subsequent government crackdown, security forces shot and killed demonstrators and rioters. While the government reported 40 persons killed, NGOs such as La Maison des Droits de l'Homme claimed that security forces killed over 100 persons.
...
On March 2, DGRE officers arrested SDF parliamentarian Jean Michel Nintcheu from Littoral Region at the Douala International Airport, while he was about to travel to France. Despite Nintcheu's parliamentary immunity, the DGRE officers confiscated his passport but released him after an hour of detention and without any formal charges. On June 10, officials returned Nintcheu's passport to him.[12]
[12] United States Department of State (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor) (25 February 2009); 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – Cameroon section 2b & 2d
Consideration of claims and evidence
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. The Tribunal finds significant inconsistencies in the applicant’s claims and finds that the applicant is not a credible witness.
Political opinion
As detailed above the applicant claims he has been a member of the SDF since 2004. He claims to have a SDF membership card issued in June 2005. He also relies on a letter headed ‘attestation of activist’ by the President of the SDF Electoral District of Yaoundé in June 2005. He claims a convocation was issued by the [police] in March 2008 seeking to question him. The Tribunal has had regard to the sworn evidence the applicant provided before the RRT in December 2010 in support of his [Relative A]’s protection visa application where he declared that that he was not a member of the SDF and was not politically active in Cameroon. The Tribunal finds the inconsistencies are significant and concerning.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was a member of the SDF, was politically active in Cameroon, that he is a person of interest to the authorities or that a convocation was issued in March 2008 because the authorities wanted to question him. The Tribunal finds the copy of applicant’s SDF membership card, convocation and letter of activism are false documents which were manufactured to support his claim for protection.
In making this finding the Tribunal has also had country information referred to in the delegate’s decision that confirms that document fraud is prevalent in Cameroon and that fraudulent ‘convocations’ and other types of documents can be easily obtained.
In assessing the applicant’s evidence the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s explanation that the discrepancy in his evidence can be attributed to an interpreting error or a misunderstanding. The Tribunal gives these explanations little weight. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s evidence was not only detailed in the RRT decision but it was also summarised by the migration agent representing his [Relative A] and there was no reference to any misunderstanding or interpreting error.
Imputed political opinion and membership of a particular social group consisting of family
The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s evidence is prepared to accept that the applicant has a [Relative A] who was a SDF youth leader in 2008, that his [Relative A] feared harm in Cameroon because of his political opinion and sought asylum in Australia. The Tribunal is also prepared to accept that the applicant was present with his [Relative A] at the protest in February 2008 and travelled to [Country 1] soon after the event. To be clear, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was a member of the SDF or that he was politically active in Cameroon and was summoned by the authorities.
In light of these findings the Tribunal has considered if there is a real chance the applicant would face serious harm in Cameroon because of his imputed political opinion because he was present at the protest in 2008. The Tribunal has also considered whether there is a real chance the applicant would face harm in Cameroon for reason of his membership of his [Relative A]’s family (s.5K of the Act).
As discussed with the applicant at the hearing, the Tribunal must assess whether there is a real chance the applicant will face persecution if he returns to Cameroon in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has now been in Australia for eight years and the February 2008 demonstration occurred 11 years ago. The Tribunals also finds that the applicant’s wife and children continue to live in Cameroon and there is no suggestion that they have come to the adverse attention of the authorities.
The Tribunal also finds the applicant’s claim that he was wanted by the police after February 2008 is inconsistent with evidence that establishes he was able to freely travel between [Country 1] and Cameroon without any problems from the Cameroonian authorities.
The delegate had regard to the applicant’s movements from 2008 to 2016 and noted that his passport was issued by the Cameroonian Embassy in [Country 1], in [2015], that according to his passport he had travelled to Cameroon many times, passing through checkpoints and borders where his passport was stamped.
The Tribunal makes this finding having regard to the applicant’s evidence that he rented a property in Cameroon for his family. His daughter was born in Yaounde in [year] which is evidence to suggest that he did have interaction with his wife and family in Cameroon at the time.
The Tribunal also notes that the applicant was able to depart Cameroon and travel to Australia in October 2016 as part of an official government delegation. The Tribunal finds this evidence is inconsistent with his claim that his name is on a ‘black list’ and he is wanted by the authorities because of his political opinion or because of his [Relative A]’s involvement in the SDF.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s explanation that he paid bribes and obtain assistance from friends every time he crossed the border in Cameroon and travelled to Australia. The Tribunal finds this evidence vague and lacking in credibility. The Tribunal finds it difficult to accept the applicant would be able to bribe different government officials on a regular basis if he was a person of interest to the authorities and was on a ‘black list’.
According to his evidence he would have had to have organised connections and pay bribes, when he applied for his passport at the Cameroon Embassy in [Country 1], every time he crossed the border between [Country 1] and Cameroon and to become a member of the official Cameroonian delegation traveling to [the Field 1 Meeting] and when he departed Cameroon international airport to travel to Australia. The Tribunal has given this evidence little weight.
The Tribunal has also considered the timing of the applicant’s travel to Australia which coincided with [the Field 1 Meeting] held in [City 1 in] 2016. According to the delegate’s decision, the applicant was endorsed to travel to Australia by the Cameroon [Field 1] authority to represent Cameroon [at the Field 1 Meeting].
At the protection interview the applicant denied any knowledge of the documents submitted for the visa application and stated that he did not know what sort of visa he had secured, that he had no background in [Field 1] and worked in [Field 2]. The delegate found the applicant’s claim that he did not know that he travelled to Australia to attend [the Field 1 Meeting] is inconsistent with information in his PAX card where he indicated his ‘profession’ as ‘[Field 1]’.
At the hearing the applicant said he travelled by plane to Australia as part of a delegation of four or five people. The Tribunal does not accept as credible the applicant’s evidence that he did not know that he was traveling to Australia until the day before plane departed. It is difficult to accept that he would be able to travel as part of an official delegation if he or his [Relative A] were persons of interest to the authorities.
Importantly, in assessing whether there is a real chance the applicant would face persecution in Cameroon because of his [Relative A]’s political opinion (membership of a particular social group consisting of family) the Tribunal finds that his [Relative A] has recently voluntarily travelled to Cameroon.
The Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s evidence and finds there is no suggestion that his [Relative A] has come to the adverse attention of the authorities in Cameroon because of his political opinion or because he applied for asylum in Australia. The Tribunal finds that if the applicant’s [Relative A] feared persecution from the authorities in Cameroon he would not have voluntarily travelled back.
In conclusion, having considered individually and cumulatively the applicant’s profile as a person who took part in anti-government demonstrations in Cameroon in February 2008 (imputed political opinion) and having considered the applicant’s membership of a particular social group consisting of family (his [Relative A]) the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is real chance that the applicant would face serious harm if he was to return to Cameroon in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s fear of persecution is not well-founded.
Bamileke ethnicity (race)
In his application for protection the applicant did not claim to fear persecution in Cameroon because of his Bamileke ethnicity (race). At the hearing the applicant referred to the imprisonment of the CRM leader, Kamto. The applicant stated that Kamto is a Bamileke and therefore his imprisonment would escalate ethnic rivalries in Cameroon. The applicant claims that the Bamileke people have been chased out of the southern part of Cameroon by the Beti people who want to take over the area. The Tribunal has considered if there is a real chance the applicant would face persecution in Cameroon because of his race in light of recent political developments.
The Tribunal has had regard to the following reports which confirm that ethnic rivalries between the Bamileke and Bulu-Beti tribes are present in Cameroon. Specifically, it is reported that:
the Bamilieke, wield significant economic authority in Cameroon. Elites from this group control much of the economy and dominate the manufacturing industry. People from this ethnicity mostly occupy the west of Cameroon and have strong cultural ties to one of the Anglophone regions despite their Francophone colonial heritage.
The second, the Bulu-Beti axis, wield significant political power. Since Biya came to power, handpicked by Cameroon’s first president Amadou Ahidjo, elites from this group have seen themselves as the country’s natural rulers. The Beti and Bulu mostly reside in the centre and south regions.
The rivalry between the Bamilieke and Bulu-Beti axis came to a head in the run-up to the October 2018 presidential election in which President Biya ran for a seventh term against his main challenger Maurice Kamto, a Bamieleke. In the campaign, supporters of both sides engaged in inflammatory ethnic rhetoric, with the most xenophobic attacks coming from the Bulu-owned Vision4 Television.
In the end, Biya was declared the victor with 71.28%, but Kamto disputed the results, alleging widespread fraud. Tensions escalated, leading to some violent attacks on Cameroonian embassies in Berlin, Paris and elsewhere. Kamto, believed by many to have been the real winner of the polls, was arrested and remains incarcerated.
The government’s suppression of Kamto and his supporters mirrors its previous treatment of English-speakers. For example, the 2018 election followed a very similar pattern to that of 1992. In those polls, Biya’s main competitor was the Anglophone John Fru Ndi. That process was also marred by allegations of fraud and hate speech. In their aftermath, Biya placed Ndi, who is believed to have won the polls, under house arrest after declaring a state of emergency in his Ndi’s native North West region. The resentment created at this time added to a growing sense of exclusion, contributing to sentiments led to today’s Anglophone crisis.
Given the shared experiences of the Bamieleke and Anglophones, as well as cultural similarities, one might expect these groups to form an alliance. In fact, a leaked US embassy cable from 2011 suggested some regime insiders were discussing, and dreading, the prospect of such an ‘Anglo-Bami alliance’. In reality, such an alliance could be struck but would probably be short-lived, focusing only on ending Bulu-Beti dominance. On more fundamental questions such as the organisation of the state, cleavages would likely to emerge. Consensus on these points would not be impossible, but four decades of respective rule under the British and French during colonialism instilled differences in perspective and politics between these groups that would hard to overcome.[13]
[13] >
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant belongs to the Bamileke ethnic group. Reports confirm that the northwest and southwest regions of Cameroon have special historic legacy that sets them apart from the country’s other eight regions because they were ruled as a British Trust while the rest of the country was administered by the French.[14] The Tribunal finds that the applicant is from Yaounde, Centre Region; he is not from North or South Cameroon. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a member of the CRM opposition party in Cameroon or any other political party. He is a French speaker and identifies as a Francophone. The Tribunal also notes that the Bamileke wield significant economic authority in Cameroon. The applicant has not provided any evidence that he has faced persecution in Cameroon in the past because he is from the Bamileke ethnic group.
[14] >
The Tribunal has had regard to media reports detailed above and notes that the ethnic rivalries came to a head in the run-up to the October 2018 presidential elections. The reports do not support the applicant’s claim that Cameroon is in midst of a tribal war. Recent media reports confirm however that Kamto and hundreds of his supporters were released from custody on 5 October 2019 when President Biya ordered an end to court proceedings against CRM members following calls from delegates for a national dialogue.[15]
[15] >
Looking to the reasonably foreseeable future, the Tribunal finds that it is mere speculation to suggest that the applicant will face persecution if he returns to Cameroon because he is from the Bamileke ethnic group or because of his actual or imputed political opinion. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would face serious harm because of his race, political opinion or his family. The Tribunal finds that his fear of persecution is not well-founded.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).
The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s claims, having regard to the complementary protection provisions.
The types of harm that fall under the complementary protection provisions are exhaustively defined by s.36(2A), specifically that the person will be either arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out, the person will be subjected to torture, the person will suffer cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or the person will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
As detailed above the Tribunal did not find the applicant to be a credible witness. The Tribunal does not accept he is a member of the SDF. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has come to the adverse attention of the Cameroon authorities because of his role in the February 2008 protest or because he is an SDF member whose name has come to the attention of the authorities and failed to respond to the convocation and is on a ‘black list’. For the reasons detailed above the Tribunal is also not satisfied there is a real risk the applicant will face serious harm because his [Relative A] was a SDF member who has sought asylum in Australia.
For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is also not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Cameroon there is a real risk that he will suffer serious harm, including arbitrary deprivation of life, torture, the death penalty, cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or degrading treatment or punishment.
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Christopher Smolicz

Member
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)    severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)   pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)    that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)   arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)    that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)   that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)    for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)   for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)    for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)   for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)    for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)    a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)   if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H   Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)    in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)   in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:    For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J    Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)    the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)   there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)    the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:    For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:    For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)    conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)   conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)    without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)    that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)   the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)    the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)    a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)   significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)    significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)   significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)    denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K   Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)    disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:    Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L   Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)    a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)   the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)    any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)   the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)    protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)   the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)    the person can access the protection; and
(b)   the protection is durable; and
(c)    in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36    Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)    a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)   a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)    a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)    the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)   the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)    the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)    the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)    it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)   the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)    the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2019] AATA 6936

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice