1900598 (Refugee)

1900598 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 1578 (29 February 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Vamanan Yogendran
CASE NUMBER:  1900598
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Cameroon
MEMBER:Tony Caravella
DATE:29 February 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 29 February 2024 at 11:33am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Cameroon – ethnicity and imputed political opinion – Anglophone Cameroonian – crime, high unemployment and discrimination but no harm – separatist insurgency and widespread violence while applicant in Australia – social media activity – fear of gender-based harm – vulnerability as young single woman – brother’s protest activities – arrested, missing for some time and now refugee in third country – unhesitant, detailed and consistent evidence – one supporting statement overstates applicant’s activities – country information – no adequate state or police protection or right to enter or reside in any other country – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), (5), 5L, 36(2)(a),(2A), 65
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 dependants.
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 20 December 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Cameroon, applied for the visa on 31 March 2017. On 20 December 2018 the delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act, and is not a member of the same family unit of a person who holds a relevant protection visa (s 36(2)(b) and s 36(2)(c) of the Act).
On 9 January 2019, the applicant applied to this Tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision. The appeal was initially constituted to another Tribunal Member, however, for reasons beyond the Tribunal’s control that Member could not finally determine the appeal. The appeal was then reconstituted to me. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal, as previously constituted, on 22 November 2022 to give evidence and present arguments. I have read a transcript of that hearing and considered it together with all the evidence in this case in making my decision. The applicant again appeared and gave evidence on 29 January 2024 before the Tribunal as presently constituted.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
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 (Cth) (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). 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), 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–5LA, 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.
The gist of the applicant’s protection claims
I have extracted the following claims and statements which I consider the most relevant from a written statement, Statement of [the applicant], which formed part of her Application for a protection visa (Form 866C) and was submitted to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection on 24 April 2017.
She claims she is from the Northwest Region of Cameroon, which is one of the two English‑speaking regions of that country. She claims she has one brother who is [Number] years her senior, [Mr A], born in [Year]. After her parents suffered injuries in an automobile accident in 1999, the applicant eventually lived with [Mr A] in Bamenda. [Mr A] took over financial responsibility for the care of the applicant as her father was unable to afford her schooling expenses. She claims [Mr A] worked as [an Occupation 1]. The applicant lived with her brother from when she was 10 years of age. She claims [Mr A] was keen for the applicant to ‘go far so I could help him and his family one day.’ She decided to come to Australia to study for an advanced diploma in [Subject]. She claims this course is not taught in Cameroon and she wanted to return to her country and start a business in [Work sector 1], including operating a [business] and a [Subject 1] course there.
She claims [Mr A] was to pay her tuition fees in Australia and that she would get a job to pay her rent. She arrived in Australia in July 2015 and commenced her course and worked in various jobs.
On 5 December 2016, [Mr A] spoke to her and told her about a strike that had been going on in Cameroon since November 2016. He told her the military were burning down houses and beating, flogging and raping people. She writes she did not hear from [Mr A] after 13 December 2016. [Mr A] subsequently failed to pay the applicant’s tuition fees.
The applicant spoke to [Mr A]’s wife in January 2017, and she told her that [Mr A] and others had been taken away. She claims he was taking pictures and videos of the violence and was detained by military forces. Her brother’s wife was unable to locate [Mr A] and told the applicant the city was not safe. The applicant claims her village is not safe because it is English-speaking and the English-speaking people have decided there is no turning back until they gain independence from the French-speaking people. She claims English‑speaking Cameroonians have suffered discrimination for the past 60 years and the teachers and lawyers started a strike in 2015. She claims [Mr A] was appointed ex-student president of the former school and joined the strike.
She claims that [Mr A] was posting pictures to his [Social media] account to circulate information and he wanted the details of the atrocities in Cameroon to spread across the world. She also claims that she experienced discrimination by French-speaking Cameroonians but was never physically harmed. She refers to an example when she went to Yaounde to obtain forms for her travel to Australia and an officer told her if she could not speak French, she could not help her. She claims the hatred of the French-speaking Cameroonians towards the English speakers in Cameroon has instilled a hatred of the French language in her. She claims the English-speakers are considered second class citizens in her country.
She claims she will be targeted by the military in Cameroon because she is English‑speaking and a youth from the Northwest Region. She claims she might also be targeted for her brother’s activities. She claims she shared information on her [Social media] account but was scared and deactivated her account in February 2017. She claims she is not sure who saw her postings and her friends also shared the information. She writes that she does not know if the military knows of her or her family because of her brother’s activities.
At the time of making her application for a protection visa, she writes her brother was still missing. She was unable to pay her tuition fees and her course provider informed her they were cancelling her enrolment for the non-payment of fees.
She claims she would not be safe anywhere in Cameroon. She claims she has an English name, and the English-speaking areas are not safe, but she cannot move to the French‑speaking area because she does not speak French, would not find work and would face discrimination and violence.
She claims the Cameroonian authorities cannot help her as they are the ones who are killing people. Reports to the police are ignored and the military carries out violence against the English‑speaking population.
In a written Witness Statement sworn by the applicant on 11 November 2022, she declares, amongst other things:
·When she was growing up in the Northwest Region there was a lot of hardship due to crime and high unemployment;
·Discrimination against the English-speaking population by the French-speaking population has always been present;
·It was difficult to get a job, so she moved to study at [University] from 2009 to 2012 in the English-speaking Southwest Region;
·After coming to Australia, and after her brother [Mr A] went missing in 2015, she again heard from him in January 2020 when he telephoned her and told her he was in [Country 1];
·Her brother returned to Douala in Cameroon and was arrested again, and she claims she paid $170 to help get him released;
·[Mr A] again fled to [Country 1] after his release and was given refugee status by the UNHCR in September 2022;
·The civil war is still ongoing in Cameroon because the Anglophones have not been granted independence. Killing, rape and kidnapping is common. Her home village of [Village] was attacked in 2020 and houses were burnt;
·She fears returning to Cameroon because attacks, rape and sexual assault on women in Cameroon is common.
The applicant provided detailed written submissions on 16 November 2022 in advance of her first hearing with the Tribunal as originally constituted. The following is a summary of the key points from that submission:
·Her brother [Mr A] was involved in protests against the treatment of Anglophones in Cameroon and was arrested twice but eventually fled to [Country 1] and was granted refugee status;
·Due to her status as an English-speaking Cameroonian, she is likely to experience persecution if she were to return. Since 2016, Cameroon has been embroiled in a civil war between the French-speaking government and English-speaking separatists calling for independence for ‘Ambazonia’;
·The applicant’s status as an Anglophone Cameroonian citizen means she is a ‘member of a particular social group’ within the meaning of s 5L of the Act. She is fearful of being persecuted in her home country due to her status as an Anglophone Cameroonian. Reference is made to messages she has received from friends in Cameroon informing her of atrocities there;
·Reference is made to Country-of-Origin Information (COI) reporting on events claimed to be relevant to the applicant’s protection claims;
·The applicant has remained involved in matters relating to the ongoing war in the English-speaking regions of Cameroon. A letter from [Dr B] is included and refers to the fact that the applicant ‘assists in the facilitation of diplomatic ties between the Australian Government and interim government of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia for the awareness of civil unrest in an ongoing war in Southern Cameroon’;
·It is submitted that returning asylum seekers to Cameroon suffer serious harm and a real chance of persecution applies to the entire country. She does not speak French, and this significantly limits her ability to find work and to relocate within her country;
·In the alternative, it is submitted she faces a real risk of significant harm in her country due to her status as an Anglophone asylum seeker;
·Submissions are also made claiming she faces harm due to an imputed political opinion in light of her brother [Mr A]’s past activities in Cameroon;
·Submissions are made claiming the applicant’s status as a Cameroonian Anglophone woman and that the COI reports on ‘pervasive’ gender-based violence in the Anglophone regions of Cameroon, including COI reports on Cameroonian soldiers committing mass rape in a village in 2020. It is submitted there is unlikely to be protection for the applicant from such harm.
The delegate’s decision
The reasons for the delegate’s refusal of the applicant’s protection claims are set out in the delegate’s Decision Record dated 20 December 2018. I have considered those reasons together with all the evidence, claims and arguments submitted in this appeal.
Evidence given at hearing held 22 November 2022
As stated earlier, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 22 November 2022. I have read the written transcript from that hearing and have considered it in making my final findings in this case.
Evidence from hearing held 29 January 2024 before the reconstituted Tribunal
When I asked the applicant why she feared returning to Cameroon, she began by telling me the government of that country does not protect English-speaking Cameroonians. She referred to the return to Cameroon of Awoh Emmanual in 2020 and that he was arrested upon his return. She told me he participated in a protest in Canberra and was arrested and is still in prison. She said she is afraid he might have passed on evidence relating to her to the authorities in her country. She indicated she had no evidence to support that proposition. She added that there are reports that failed asylum seekers who are returned to Cameroon from the USA are being arrested and tortured.
The applicant told me she is a member of [Organisation 1], which is affiliated with [Organisation 2].
She told me that when the ‘Cameroon Crisis’ commenced in 2016, she was posting on social media. She told me she had no such activity before 2016 because ‘everything started in 2016’. She told me she posted about the killings that were going on in Cameroon.
When I asked her to provide details of relevant subsequent developments, she said her parents do not want to leave the place where they live, a place called [Village]. She said they are Christian, and they believe God will protect them. She told me her father used to operate a business, but he had an accident. She told me her mother farms land.
I asked the applicant about her brother [Mr A] and if she knew his precise refugee status, and I asked why she fears she would be targeted for harm because of her relationship with him. She told me they share the same name and she also contributed money towards [Mr A]’s removal from Cameroon.
The applicant told me she has never been physically harmed by anyone in Cameroon. She added, she has suffered discrimination because of the language issue, that is, she is English-speaking.
I took evidence through a telephone call with the applicant’s brother. The applicant telephoned him using her telephone which she switched to loudspeaker function. Such a call would usually be made using the Tribunal’s telephone, however, in this instance the Tribunal’s attempts to telephone him during the hearing failed so I decided to accept the applicant’s offer to call him on her telephone. Having asked the witness a number of questions during the telephone conversation, I am satisfied the witness I spoke to is the applicant’s brother, [Mr A].
[Mr A] began by telling me he is the applicant’s older brother. He also gave me the names of their parents. He told me he was speaking to me from [City] in [Country 1]. When I asked him if he could provide me with a document, or documents, verifying his claim that he has been granted asylum in [Country 1], he told me he could obtain such a document from the CNAR (National Committee for Assistance for Refugees) office which is involved with refugees in [Country 1].
I asked [Mr A] to tell me where his wife and children are. He told me they had received threats while they remained in Cameroon, and he had to negotiate and had to pay money to enable them to travel to [Country 1]. He elaborated by telling me that after he left Cameroon the police continued asking his wife if she was communicating with him. He told me he departed Cameroon in December 2021, and he has not returned since then.
[Mr A] told me about the business he operated before he left Cameroon. He told me it is in the [Work sector 2]. He said he had work through his business in [four African countries]. He said he lost all his business documents when he left Cameroon. He told me the business no longer operates.
[Mr A] told me his [Social media] name is his son’s name. He told me his wife had access to the [Social media] account and that when he was arrested and detained in Cameroon, he did not have access to [Social media]. He told me he had been arrested twice. The first time was in January 2017 when he was held for 5 days. The second time he was arrested was in December 2021 when he said he was detained for 10 days. He told me his aunt was in the police force and she negotiated his release and ransom.
Upon asking [Mr A] if he believes the applicant would be harmed if she was returned to Cameroon, he said she would be and said that she is an English-speaking Cameroonian and a pretty woman. He said she would be viewed as a ‘sex toy’ and would be perceived as having money, so she faced a risk of kidnapping and rape.
I referred [Mr A] to the applicant’s claim where she asserted that she travelled to Australia as a student, that he was financing her study costs etc. and that he had failed to pay her school fees. [Mr A] told me he experienced financial difficulty at the relevant time because his company lost a significant contract. He told me the loss of the contract might have been due to corruption.
After taking evidence from the witness [Mr A], I continued my questions to the applicant. She resumed by telling me when she first came to Australia she intended to study and then return to Cameroon to start a business there. She told me she has only recently completed her studies and she has graduated with a Bachelor of [Subject 2]. She commences working as [an Occupation] at [Workplace] [in] February 2024.

I asked the applicant about the renewal of her passport. She told me she sent all the documents to the embassy in [Country 1] and five months later she received her new Cameroonian passport. I put it to her that it appeared she experienced no difficulty or undue delay in getting her passport reissued, and that I would have to consider whether this might suggest the relevant authorities in Cameroon have no adverse interest in her.
When I asked her if she had received any threats from the authorities or anyone else in her country, she told me she received no such threats. She added that she has received warnings from friends who tell her not to return to Cameroon. She also said there is a general warning from the military of the Republic of Cameroon to everyone not to participate in anti-government activity.
I referred the applicant to the letter from [Dr B], which was submitted by the applicant. The applicant told me the letter was provided to her because the applicant is a member of [Organisation 2]. She told me she has never met [Dr B], who she said lives in [Country 2]. I referred the applicant to the statement in [Dr B]’s submission where it states the applicant assists in the facilitation of diplomatic ties between the Australian Government and the interim government of the Federal Republic of Ambazonia. I put it to the applicant that the evidence before me did not suggest she had such a role and I had formed the impression that this was an embellishment and an inflation of the circumstances. The applicant told me she did not write [Dr B]’s letter and could not control what was said in it. I put it to her, however, she had submitted it as being a true statement and that I might consider her credibility is in doubt if she resiled from what is said in that, or in any other statement which she certified as true and complete.
The applicant told me the military turned up at her home and searched it in 2022. She told me her name was not specifically mentioned during the search.
She told me the Social Democratic Front (SDF) is the political party that supports the English-speaking Cameroonians. She told me she was not a member of any political party before she came to Australia.
I put it to her that I would need to consider whether the action she has undertaken in Australia has been for the sole purpose of bolstering her protection claims and invited her to respond to this. She told me, ‘It started when I was here, people were being killed.’
I asked her for her view on whether she was a secessionist. She replied firstly by saying she did not know the meaning of the term. When I explained that it generally refers to a person who favours the withdrawal from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state, in this case whether she supported a separate state of Ambazonia, she told me she is pro‑secession. She added that there is much discrimination in Cameroon, and it would be better for the English-speaking Cameroonians to separate.
I referred the applicant to her claim where she asserts that she fears gender-based harm in Cameroon and invited her to provide detail about that. She began by saying that a lot of women have been raped or kidnapped in her country. When I asked if there was anything in her circumstances that caused her in particular to be at risk, she said it is because of her age and because she is English-speaking. She told me she was [Age] years of age when she left Cameroon and came to Australia. When I asked if she had experienced any gender‑based harm while in her country, she told me she had not. She also told me she is not in an ongoing spousal or similar relationship with anyone in Cameroon or in Australia.
In relation to discrimination in Cameroon, the applicant told me she was able to complete the education that she had completed in Cameroon, but that this did not help her when it came to getting a government job. When I pointed out that the evidence before me indicates she was still able to find paid employment, she told me her work was with a private employer.
Upon asking her if she is the subject of any arrest warrant in her country, or is otherwise wanted by the authorities, she said she was not aware if she is the subject of an arrest warrant.
When I asked if she had considered moving to [Country 1] to be with her brother [Mr A] there, she said she does not speak French and that would be a problem in [Country 1].
I referred to COI in the UK Home Office report which reports that in response to the unrest, the President of Cameroon announced a ‘national dialogue’ in September 2019 which allowed all Cameroonians the opportunity to submit proposals to resolve the security crisis. I noted that the COI from the UK Home Office reports, amongst other things, the government released 289 Anglophone activists in December 2018.[1] The applicant responded by telling me that if things had improved, there would not be killings.
[1] See paragraphs 2.41 to 2.45 of UK Home Office – Country Policy and Information Note – Cameroon: North-West / South-West crisis, December 2020.
At the close of the applicant’s oral evidence, I put the following concerns to her in relation to her claim for non-refoulement protection:
·I had some concern over the evidence which indicates she had no history of activism prior to leaving Cameroon, and indeed she did not leave but for taking up studies in Australia.
·She experienced no gender-based harm in the past and there appeared to be no significant change in her circumstances such that she would face a real risk of gender-based harm now or in the reasonably foreseeable future if she returned to Cameroon.
·In relation to being Anglophone, while there is evidence of discrimination in her country, the evidence indicated she did not experience serious or significant harm even if she experienced unpleasant and emotionally hurtful discrimination.
·In relation to the targeting for harm because of her brother, there appears to be no persuasive evidence that her brother is still regarded with an adverse interest or that the family would be targeted for harm. In fact, the evidence suggests her parents have not been harmed.
The applicant’s representative made the following oral submissions:
·It was submitted the applicant is a member of a particular social group, namely Anglophone Cameroonian returnees, and she faces a real chance of harm on this basis;
·Regarding the national dialogue in 2019, there was dialogue and peace talks but there is still violence in spite of those and there was a massacre in February 2020 (refer to pp 33–34 of the latest submission);
·Most of the fighting takes place in the English-speaking areas and the applicant is at risk because she comes from that area. It was submitted the violence is indiscriminate and this raises the real risk of complementary protection;
·In relation to the applicant’s conduct in Australia being for the purpose of bolstering her protection claim, it was submitted when the applicant left Cameroon the situation was more stable;
·There are copies of postings on [Social media] which date back to 2017 and social media postings in 2016;
·Regarding the letter from [Dr B], the applicant accepts there was some exaggeration in it, but the applicant maintains she has been supporting and making donations to the cause. It is submitted this should not raise credibility concerns as she has been truthful and has not claimed she has been harmed;
·Regarding the renewal of her passport, the applicant was honest and submitted she does not know if she is a person of adverse interest, however, if it is accepted that failed asylum seekers are targeted, then the renewal of the passport is immaterial;
·Regarding going to [Country 1], it was submitted there is not an enforceable right to enter or reside in that country, and the applicant would face language problems.
Post-hearing submissions
On 7 February 2024, the Tribunal received a photocopy of a document titled Attestation de Reconnaissance du statut de Réfugié et demandeur d’asile issued by the CNAR. The document is dated [January] 2024 and signed by the Director, Marphin Semarg Ngkosso. A certified translation of the document is included, and this reveals that the CNAR certifies that [Mr A] is a Cameroonian refugee residing in [Country 1].
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, 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.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the criteria to be owed protection obligations pursuant to s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
Credibility
The process of determining whether an applicant meets a visa criterion, including whether an applicant is a person who meets the definition of a refugee, often requires the Tribunal to decide whether it accepts certain evidence and how much weight to give to that evidence. This process may involve assessing the credibility of an applicant or other persons and documentary evidence. In relation to protection visa matters, if the Tribunal is not able to make a confident finding that an applicant’s account is not credible, it must make its assessment on the basis that it is possible, although not certain, that the applicant’s account of past events is true. If, on the other hand, the Tribunal is able to make confident findings as to particular events, it is not obliged to consider the possibility that its findings of fact may not be correct.
I have carefully considered the applicant’s claims and evidence and considered this within the context of the COI before me. The COI before me includes the COI from the UK Home Office,[2] and that cited in the delegate’s Decision Record. While I have found the applicant has provided some evidence which I consider overstates and exaggerates part of her claims, I do not find this fatal to her claims overall in the circumstances of this claim. In particular, I refer to the letter from [Dr B] which I find is an overstatement of the applicant’s role and influence in matters to do with Ambazonia in Australia. Having regard to all the evidence, I have otherwise found the applicant’s evidence to be consistent and detailed. I found at the hearing she gave her evidence openly, without hesitation and without any suggestion of evasiveness. Having regard to the applicant’s written claims and oral evidence before me overall, considered in light of relevant COI, I find the applicant is a credible witness. I have made a similar assessment of the evidence of her brother [Mr A].
[2] Country Policy and Information Note – Cameroon: North-West/South-West crisis, December 2020 (“the UK Home Office Report”)
Assessment of claims
In assessing her claims, I begin by accepting the applicant is a national of Cameroon and an Anglophone and that she has no present enforceable right to enter or reside in any other country whether temporarily or permanently. I accept that if her protection visa claim fails, she will be removed to Cameroon, and I have considered the relevant COI available to me in relation to circumstances in that country in assessing her non-refoulement claims.
Based on all the evidence before me, I accept as true her claim that she originally travelled to Australia in July 2015 for the purpose of studying [Subject 1]. I accept she commenced that course but then had to discontinue when her brother [Mr A] was unable to continue paying the tuition fees. Based on all the evidence before me, I accept [Mr A] was unable to continue paying those fees because his [business] failed. I accept the applicant’s claim that she has subsequently been able to return to studies in Australia and that she has completed a degree in [Subject 2].
In relation to the evidence that I received from the applicant’s brother [Mr A], I am satisfied as to his identity and found he gave his evidence in an open, consistent and coherent manner. I have considered the document he submitted after the hearing, that is, the Certificate of Recognition of Refugee Status issued by the CNAR. I accept COI reports that CNAR is the UNHCR’s main governmental partner in Cameroon and deals with general refugee issues, including Refugee Status Determination (RSD).[3]
[3]
I accept the claim that [Mr A] was arrested because he was suspected of anti-government or pro-Anglophone activities, has had to flee Cameroon and is a refugee in [Country 1].
I accept the COI from the UK Home Office reports that Cameroon’s English-speaking minority of 5 million people make up approximately 20% of the country’s total population. They largely live in the two ‘Anglophone’ regions of the Northwest Region and Southwest Region. I accept the COI reports that there has been some periodic expression of Anglophone discontent over these changes since 1972. The most recent phase of discontent began in October 2016 when Anglophone lawyers and teachers protested about the growing number of Francophone judges and teachers in the Anglophone regions. The Government responded by deploying troops, including using live ammunition. On 1 October 2017, separatists declared an independent state called the ‘Republic of Ambazonia’.[4]
[4] Para 2.4.1 to 2.4.3 of the UK Home Office report.
I am also persuaded by the reliability of the following COI from the UK Home Office where it states:
Based on a review of the sources consulted, persons who are Anglophones and have been, or are perceived to have been, involved in activities opposed to the government, including advocating greater autonomy or secession for Anglophone areas, are likely to be of adverse interest to the state. Whether a person is at risk of persecution will depend on their profile and activities. Factors to take into account include:
•    the nature, aims and methods of the group they support or are linked to
•    the role, nature and profile of their activities for the organisation they represent or are linked to
•    whether it has a presence in Cameroon as well as outside of the country and any evidence that it is monitored by the government
•    if they are not part of a particular group their role and activities in opposing the government, such as organising demonstrations or publicly criticising the government via conventional or social media, both in country and also in the country of seeking asylum
•    whether they have come to the attention of the authorities previously, and if so, the nature of this interest.[5]
[5] Para 2.4.8 of the UK Home Office Report.
In the absence of any contradictory evidence on the question of the documents provided by the applicant in relation to her brother, and although I am aware of COI reporting on the occurrence of document fraud in Cameroon, I accept the provenance and reliability of the refugee document indicating the applicant’s brother is granted refugee status in [Country 1]. I accept the applicant’s claim that she reposted her brother [Mr A]’s photos depicting the conflict in Cameroon and that such postings were critical of the present government. I accept the applicant closed her [Social media] account some years ago, however, in view of her brother’s ant-government activities having come to the attention of the Cameroonian government authorities, I consider there is a real chance that the relevant authorities in her country are aware of the applicant’s activities and that they are perceived to be anti-government as well. Having regard to all the circumstances in this case, I find the applicant’s evidence and the relevant COI cited above supports a conclusion that she does face a real chance of serious harm for reason of her pro-Anglophone political opinion now or in the reasonably foreseeable future if she returns to Cameroon.
I have considered the applicant’s claim that she faced discrimination in Cameroon for reason of being Anglophone. I accept that she is in a minority as an Anglophone Cameroonian and that COI reports there is discrimination against the minority Anglophone population in Cameroon. I accept that she faces some risk of future discrimination, however, do not accept that of itself amounts to serious harm or persecution. However, I find that when the harm from discrimination is accumulated with the other serious harm, she faces for reason of her political opinion then this simply worsens the applicant’s risk of being targeted for serious harm if she returns to her country.
I accept the applicant’s evidence that she was never actually physically harmed for any reason while in Cameroon. However, I also accept the principle that an absence of past harm cannot be determinative on the question of risk of future harm. Having regard to all the evidence before me, I find the applicant faces a heightened risk of serious harm if she returns to her country now. In particular, given her extended absence from Cameroon, I find her circumstances are such that she is likely to be perceived as a person returning to Cameroon with money and as a single young woman. In these circumstances, I find she would be vulnerable to targeted attacks.
I have considered her claim where she asserts it would be difficult for her to find work back in Cameroon because she does not speak French. I accept she would face some limitation in securing work in government, or in other employment requiring the French language. However, I also find she would be returning with [Subject 2] qualifications and skills and that would offset to some extent difficulties in finding work. I therefore do not accept she faces a real chance of serious harm for reason of being denied the capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind where the denial threatens her capacity to subsist.
I have considered the applicant’s conduct in Australia and whether her conduct and involvement in pro-Anglophone and pro-Ambazonia organisations was for the purpose of strengthening her non-refoulement claims. Having regard to all the evidence before me, I reject the proposition that her conduct in this regard was solely for the purpose of enhancing her protection claim. Rather, I find she in fact genuinely believes in the Ambazonian cause and has pursued activities in support of that while in Australia. I also accept that the conflict between Anglophone and Francophone Cameroonians took a turn for the worse since the applicant’s arrival in Australia and that is a further reason why she has been active in pro‑Anglophone activities while in Australia.
I have considered the applicant’s claims and circumstances and her risk of arrest and mistreatment on her return to her country. I accept there is COI reporting that persons of adverse interest to the relevant authorities in Cameroon are subject to arrest and mistreatment. Based on all the evidence before me, including her past pro-Anglophone activities which I find would be perceived to be anti-government activities, and coupled with her familial relationship with her brother [Mr A] who I am satisfied is perceived to be an anti-government activist, I find that there is a real chance that she may be arrested and mistreated on her return due to her imputed anti-government / pro-Anglophone political opinion.

I have considered the applicant’s claim where she submits she faces serious harm for reason of her gender in returning to Cameroon. I accept this claim was not made explicitly in her original claim before the Department, however, I do not draw an adverse inference from that. The claim clearly arises on the facts of this case, and I find it is supported convincingly by the relevant COI on the treatment of women in the applicant’s circumstances.[6] Having regard to that COI, I find she faces a real chance of serious harm amounting to persecution for reason of being a member of a particular social group, which can be characterised as single young Anglophone females returning to Cameroon from an advanced western affluent country, if she returns to Cameroon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
[6] See Part 24 Women in UK Home Office, Country Background Note – Cameroon, December 2020 -
Having regard to the COI before me, I find the applicant cannot realistically rely on access to adequate police protection if she requires it in her country. I find the COI, for example from the UK Home Office, reports that the police are inefficient, lack equipment and are poorly trained. According to the sources consulted by the UK Home Office, corruption and bribery are commonplace, while the police’s response to crimes is often slow and sometimes non‑existent. One source noted that perpetrators of crimes were rarely caught. The UK Home Office also reports that the law which provides penalties for corrupt officials is not implemented effectively.[7] The same report also highlights that the security forces are reported to have committed human rights abuses, including arbitrary killings, forced disappearances, rape, beating, harassing and abusing citizens as well as destroying private property and the killing of civilians and suspected separatists. Torture and killings are also alleged to have taken place on detainees.[8] I have also considered the COI reports that despite the weaknesses, and despite the state’s willingness and ability to provide protection, those living in areas of conflict, and women, will find it particularly difficult to access.[9] Having regard to the circumstances in this case, and to the relevant COI, I find the applicant does not have effective protection measures in her country for the purposes of s.5J(2) of the Act.
[7] Para 2.3.4, UK Home Office Country Policy and Information Note Cameroon: Actors of protection Version 1.0 December 2020.
[8] Para 2.3.6.
[9] Para 2.3.10.
CONCLUSION
In concluding my assessment of the applicant’s claims, based on all the evidence before me, I find the applicant has demonstrated that she faces a real chance of serious harm of a kind contemplated in s5J(5) if she returns to Cameroon. I am also satisfied the reason for this harm is because of her political opinion and because of her membership of a particular social group as I have identified above. I consider the evidence of her circumstances considered cumulatively and synergistically makes it clear that she faces a real chance of serious harm for these reasons and that she therefore has a well-founded fear of persecution should she be returned to Cameroon now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Based on the evidence before me, I find the applicant meets the definition of ‘refugee’ per s.5H(1)(a) of the Act. I am also satisfied that the evidence before me shows she meets the requirements of s.5J of the Act.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a refugee and therefore is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.
Tony Caravella
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.
…

[2024] AATA 1578

29 February 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Remedies