1900634 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual who claimed to be fleeing persecution in Ghana due to a chieftaincy dispute. The applicant asserted a specific identity and profile, including details about his ethnicity, religion, family, education, and employment history. The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether there was a real chance of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Ghana.

The court's reasoning focused on assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims, given the inconsistencies and contradictions identified in his evidence. The applicant provided conflicting information regarding his marital status, his children's dates of birth, and the timeline of his family relationships. These discrepancies raised significant concerns about the reliability of his account. The court considered the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), including sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa), which outline the criteria for protection visas and complementary protection, respectively.

Ultimately, the court found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2) of the Act. The decision noted that there was no suggestion that the applicant qualified for a protection visa as a member of the family unit of a person who met the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa). Consequently, the decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of the protection visa, was upheld.