1904115 (Refugee) - [2024] ARTA 569

1904115 (REFUGEE) [2024] ARTA 569 (20 NOVEMBER 2024)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Home Affairs

Tribunal Number: 1904115
Tribunal:General Member X Emery
Date:20 November 2024

Place:Sydney
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 20 November 2024 at 10:30am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Ghana – religion and membership of particular social group – Christian schoolteacher – complaints and threats from Muslim and traditionalist families and persecution in community – delay in applying for protection – applied after period as unlawful non-citizen – employment history and complaints accepted – inconsistent claims and evidence about threats and fear of harm – no contact by school families to applicant’s family or ongoing connection to town – country information – Christian majority – constitutional protection, religiously motivated violence rare and no systematic persecution or significant conflict – religious education in national curriculum includes Christian and Islamic perspectives – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (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 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’).
The applicant, who is a citizen of Ghana, applied for the visa on 16 October 2018. On 8 February 2019 the delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations.
The applicant applied for review of the delegate’s decision with the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the AAT’) on 22 February 2019. On 14 October 2024, the AAT was abolished and replaced with the Administrative Review Tribunal (‘the ART’).[1]
[1] References in this decision to ‘the Tribunal’ are intended to include both the AAT and the ART.
Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1)Act 2024 (‘the Transitional Act’), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the ART. The Transitional Act gives the ART the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 July 2024 to give evidence and present arguments.
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-LA, 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 (‘DFAT’) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Background
In his visa application and in oral evidence to the Tribunal, the applicant provided the following information. He was born in [his home town], in the Brong-Ahafo region on [Date]. His ethnicity is Akan and he is a [Christian]. He speaks English and Twi.
He has his mother and two [sisters] in Ghana. His mother is in her [age range] and has been blind for about the last two years. She lives with one of the applicant’s sisters in [Location], Ghana. His other sister resides in a different part of [his home town]. His father passed away in about 2008. He speaks with his mother and sister about once a month, and his other sister about once a fortnight and also over text message.
He is in a relationship with an Australian citizen, [Ms A]. They have been together for three years. They are engaged and plan to get married and have [children]. They have considered applying for a Partner visa but have not yet.
In Ghana he completed a Diploma and then a Bachelor of [Subject 1]. He worked as a teacher for around eight years, at three different schools in [Town], Brong-Ahafo, Ghana. In Australia, he has been employed in [workplace]s in Sydney and has also completed a Certificate III and IV in [Subject 2].
The applicant arrived in Australia [in] March 2018 as the holder of a [visa] granted [in] 2018. This visa ceased on 15 May 2018. The applicant subsequently became unlawful, before he applied for a Protection (Subclass 866) visa on 16 October 2018.
Evidence before the Department of Home Affairs
A copy of the applicant’s Ghanaian [passport] (issued [2018]) appears in the Department file before me, as well as a copy of his previous Ghanaian [passport] (issued [2013]).
In his visa application, the applicant made the following claims to be owed protection (in summary):
a.He was born and raised a Christian. He left Ghana and came to Australia because he feared for his life and safety due to threats he received from other members of the community due to his religion.
b.He was a qualified teacher in Ghana and worked for the Ghana Education Service for nearly eight years. He was responsible for teaching a range of subjects to [students]. Issues began after he was posted to [School 1] as a classroom teacher in 2016.
c.As a result of his teaching of the religious curriculum, word spread amongst the parents that he was preaching Christianity. He began to receive complaints from the parents of the traditionalist families, which escalated to threats of physical harm and death.
d.The issues began in early 2018 when he was teaching a new group of students. They reported to their parents that he was preaching Christianity as the correct faith. He was accused of brainwashing children. His superiors at the school said they would look into the matter but before they did, the situation escalated and he was threatened by parents, including parents of children in other classes.
e.He tried to seek help from the Ghana Education Service and the local police but was unable to stop the threats. Even though he was able to identify some of the people who made the threats, it extended beyond his employment and he was facing persecution in the community and his reputation was tarnished. He was forced to leave his job and remain out of the spotlight until he left Ghana.
f.He stayed with a friend in another town for the last few weeks of his stay in Ghana. There was no point relocating to another area given how far the issue had spread.
g.If he returns to Ghana he will be seriously harmed or killed by Islamic or traditional faith families who have accused him of trying to convert their children to Christianity. The police in Ghana have no power to detain or arrest these people unless they commit a grievous crime against the applicant. They did not think the threats warranted an arrest and the applicant felt the police or government can do nothing to protect him or stop the false rumours. He cannot relocate because there are thousands of Muslims and Traditionalists who reside throughout the country.
The applicant also provided to the Department the following documents:
a.A copy of his West African Senior School Certificate from [Year].
b.A copy of his Diploma in [Subject] from [named College] dated 1 September 2010.
c.A copy of a letter from [named College] dated 10 January 2011 confirming he was a student at the college.
d.A copy of his Bachelor of [Subject] from [University] dated [June] 2013.
e.A copy of a letter dated [August] 2010 from Ghana Education Services advising the applicant of his posting to [School 1] as a teacher.
f.A copy of a letter dated [August] 2016 advising the applicant of his reposting to [School 1].
g.A copy of a letter from Ghana Police dated [January] 2019.
h.A copy of a letter from Ghana Education Services dated [January] 2019.
i.A copy of a letter from the Headmaster of [School 1] dated [January] 2019.
The applicant was invited to an interview with the delegate on 7 January 2019. I have listened to a recording of that interview. The delegate’s decision record sets out relevant aspects of the applicant’s evidence at interview.
On 8 February 2019 the delegate refused to grant the applicant a Protection visa. The delegate did not accept the applicant had been targeted because of his Christian faith, or that he had been threatened by anyone because of his conduct at the school. Accordingly, the delegate was not satisfied he faced a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm on return to Ghana.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The applicant applied for review of the delegate’s decision on 22 February 2019 and provided a copy of the delegate’s decision record with his review application.
No further evidence or information in support of the applicant’s claims for protection was provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing. At the hearing, the applicant presented his current Ghanaian [passport] (issued in Canberra [in] 2023).
At the hearing on 17 July 2024, I discussed with the applicant his travel history, his family, his education and employment history, the places he had lived in Ghana, and his claims for protection. The applicant gave the following oral evidence.
He grew up in [his hometown] in western Ghana. He completed high school in [his hometown] in [Year]. In [Year] he went to [college] in [City] where he completed a three-year diploma. He lived at the college in [City] during this time. After he completed his diploma he was posted to [School 1] in the town of [Town] in September 2010. He taught at this school for around three years. Between 2011 and 2013 he was also completing his Bachelor of [Subject] at [University] at their [Campus]. He was teaching during the week and studying on weekends. In 2013 he began working at [Institution] as [a subject] teacher. He worked there for almost three years, before he was transferred to [School 1] in 2016.
In January 2018, the applicant was teaching his Religious and Moral Education (‘RME’) class where there was a discussion about religion. A debate amongst the students about the superiority of Christianity arose, with Christian students stating that to get to heaven you had to pass through Jesus Christ, and that those who worship idols are stupid. Other students were insulted. The applicant tried to build on the debate, but the students thought he was backing the Christian side or indoctrinating them and reported this to their parents or brothers.
The applicant was confronted by the parents, who did not allow him to explain that he was teaching the curriculum and accused him of brainwashing their children. At first it was a couple of parents who came to the school on more that five occasions in one week. Some came in the morning and others in the afternoon. On the first occasion they met with the headmaster of the school, but it escalated after that. On other occasions they came as a group of about 15 or 20 with weapons such as sticks, chains and belts. The applicant had to hide in the office.
The headmaster reported the parents to the education office, who reported them to the police. The applicant said he never went to the police himself, nor did the police ever attend the school.
On one occasion they came to his house in the night and threw toilet waste and hot food on his house. They used wood to try to break the windows and the gate at the front door, but were unable to. He called a friend who went to the police. After this he started staying elsewhere.
His colleagues, other teachers, told him to watch out, to stay indoors, and to hide himself.
The whole incident started in the second week of January 2018 and went on for around a month. He stopped working at [School 1] in January 2018.
He moved to Accra for a couple of weeks and stayed with a friend, before travelling to Australia [in] March 2018.
The applicant fears returning to Ghana because of these events. He believes both the former students and their families will come after him, and as the students are grown up now they can come for him. He fears being killed or that his life will be tortured. He was unable to name anyone specifically that he feared would try to harm him.
I asked when the applicant had last heard from anyone back home in Ghana about this issue. He claimed that he spoke with a friend in about November or December 2023, who was a teacher in [Town], and who warned him not to come to Ghana because they are still after him. He also said that he had now lost contact with this friend.
I asked why he thought they would still be interested in him or hold such strong feelings or animosity towards him given some six years had passed since the events and that he had been in Australia since this time. The applicant responded that if someone wants to do something to you, it doesn’t matter how long had passed and that some think he indoctrinated them, or will blame him for having converted to Christianity. Any time he goes to Ghana, they will still come after him. He said he has no plans to ever return to Ghana.
The applicant confirmed neither his mother or sisters were ever threatened or contacted in relation to his issue, stating that people didn’t know them and they had never visited him in [Town]. However, when I asked how anyone would know if he returned to Ghana or was in [his home town], he also said he was known and the target and that his mother and sisters were not the target.
The applicant claimed that he was at risk of harm throughout Ghana because they are dealing with religion all over Ghana, the families he had the dispute with have family everywhere, and that he could be recognised everywhere in Ghana because his pictures have been circulated.
ANALYSIS, REASONS, AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations because he is a refugee or owed complementary protection. For the reasons that follow, I have concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Country information
Ghana has a population of over 34 million people, approximately 71% of which are Christians of various denominations.[2] It is a country of religious freedom and tolerance, and independent country information indicates that religiously motivated violence is rare in Ghana. I have been unable to locate any reports of systematic religious persecution, or of significant inter-faith conflict in Ghana.
[2] ‘The World Factbook: Ghana’, CIA: Accessed 18 November 2024.
The US Department of State ‘2023 Report on International Religious Freedom: Ghana’ includes the following:
The constitution of Ghana prohibits religious discrimination and provides for individuals’ freedom to profess and practice any religion.
…
The Ministry of Education includes compulsory religious and moral education in the national public education curriculum. There is no provision to opt out of these courses, which incorporate perspectives from Christianity and Islam.
…
Faith-based schools that accept funds from the government are obliged to comply with the directive that states students’ religious practices must be respected. The High Court reaffirmed this principle in 2021 when it decided in favor of two Rastafarian students who sued the government when their school required them to cut their dreadlocks.
…
Government officials leading official events generally offered Christian and Islamic prayers and, occasionally, traditional invocations. President Akufo-Addo, a Christian, and Vice President Mahamudu Bawumia, a Muslim, continued to emphasize the importance of peaceful religious coexistence in public remarks.
…
Muslim and Christian leaders continued informal dialogue between their respective governing bodies and the National Peace Council. Faith leaders said they regularly communicated among themselves on religious matters and on ways to address issues of mutual concern or sensitivity. Leaders regularly gave token gifts or donations to other religious groups’ major projects and publicized informal courtesy calls as a means of emphasizing tolerance and peace. [3]
[3] ‘2023 Report on International Religious Freedom: Ghana’, US Department of State:
Freedom House reports that the government of Ghana largely upholds legally and constitutionally protected religious freedom. Regarding religious education in schools, Freedom House’s ‘Freedom in the World 2024: Ghana’ reports as follows:
Muslim students have allegedly been required to participate in Christian prayer sessions and church services in some publicly funded Christian schools. Muslims have also accused private Christian schools of discrimination in recent years, saying that the schools restricted Muslim students from observing their own religious customs.[4]
[4] ‘Freedom in the World 2024: Ghana’, Freedom House:

Only limited reports about attacks or violence perpetrated towards Christians were able to be located, and inter-faith violence appears to be rare.[5] Of those identified, several sources are Christian organisations and as such the independence and reliability of the information reported is limited. Christianity appears to feature in daily life in Ghana,[6] and Ghana does not appear on the Open Doors ‘World Watch List 2024’ of the most dangerous places to be a Christian.
[5] See for example: ‘Ghanaian Isaac Owusu-Bempah's church stormed over prophecy’, BBC, 4 January 2019: ‘Nine Killed in Rare Attack in Ghana’, International Christian Concern, 21 September 2023: ‘Christian Children in Ghana Bullied, Attacked by Muslim Classmates, Reveals Missionary’, The Gospel Herald, 14 August 2017:
[6] See for example: ‘Faith, hope and prayers in Ghana’, Reuters, 1 March 2017:
No information was provided by the applicant in support of his claims of religiously motivated conflict or tension in Ghana.
Findings on past events and past harm in Ghana
On some matters, I found the applicant to be honest and forthcoming in his evidence. He was able to provide a relatively detailed and consistent narrative of his education and employment up until January 2018, and the initial classroom dispute in January 2018. I am satisfied that on these matters, he was speaking from his genuine lived experiences. However, there were also some marked inconsistencies in his evidence (discussed further below), which lead me not to be satisfied that everything the applicant claims took place, in fact did take place.
I accept the applicant was a teacher in Ghana for about eight years and last taught at [School 1] in the town of [Town]. These findings are supported by the applicant’s consistent oral and written evidence about his education and employment history, as well as the corroborative evidence he has provided in the form of his tertiary qualifications and letters from the Ghana Education Service about his postings at several schools.
I also accept that the applicant was teaching an RME class when a heated debate, dispute, or argument broke out between students of the class from the Christian, Islamic and traditional African faiths about the supremacy of the Christian religion over others. I accept that some of the content of that debate or dispute, however inaccurately, was conveyed to parents of the students and attributed to the applicant. I accept that the students’ parents or family members of the Islamic and traditional African faiths were unhappy about this, or took offence, and accused the applicant of trying to convert or indoctrinate their children in Christianity. I have doubts about whether anything further occurred after this. However, I am prepared to accept that some parents or family members attended the school, argued with the applicant or accused him of indoctrinating their children, spoke with the headmaster of the school, and that the issue was raised with the local Ghana Education Service office. The applicant’s evidence about these events has been broadly consistent since he made his protection visa application.
However, I do not accept the applicant’s claims that the parents or families of the affected students responded in the violent way he has described or that there were any further incidents involving the parents or families. The applicant’s written and oral evidence about events after the original classroom dispute or debate has been inconsistent on the following significant matters:
a.At interview with the delegate, the applicant said that the first incident that occurred after the classroom dispute was when a ripe pawpaw was thrown at him one evening on his way to teach an evening class, which had hit him in the face. He had reported it to the headmaster who accompanied the applicant to make a police report. However, at the hearing before me, the applicant made no mention of this incident at all.
b.At interview with the delegate, the applicant claimed that people came to his home one night and were striking objects to make loud noises outside his home. However, at the hearing before me, the applicant also claimed that during this incident, toilet waste and hot food was thrown at his home, and that they had used wood to try to break down his door and windows.
c.In his visa application, the applicant said he had sought help from the police as well as the Ghana Education Service. At interview with the delegate the applicant said he had been to the police after the pawpaw incident and after people came to his home at night. However, at the hearing before me, the applicant stated he had never been to the police himself and had only reported to the Ghana Education Service office.
When these inconsistencies were discussed with the applicant at the hearing, he was unable to provide any explanation for them.
I acknowledge that more than six years have passed since the events the applicant was describing, and that the passage of time would affect the applicant’s memory of events, such as his ability to recall various details of events, or the order in which events occurred. However, I do not accept that the passage of time and the impact this would have on memory accounts for the discrepancies above. I do not accept the applicant would not recall that he had personally been to the police on more than one occasion. Nor that he would forget the pawpaw incident, given the very specific nature of this event and that he claimed it was the first thing to happen after the classroom dispute. Had people thrown toilet waste and food at the applicant’s home, and attempted to break doors and windows, it is entirely unclear why the applicant would not have relayed these significant details at his interview with the delegate. These inconsistencies cause me to doubt the reliability of the applicant’s evidence and that any of these events took place.
I have considered the three corroborative letters the applicant provided (following his interview with the delegate) in support of his claims from the Ghana Education Service, the Ghana Police, and [School 1]. However, aspects of these documents are not consistent with the applicant’s own claims and I find that they are of very limited value in corroborating his testimony. For example:
a.The letter from Ghana Police dated [January] 2019, states that [in] January 2018 about fifty Muslim youths had besieged [School 1] and that police rushed to the scene and brought it under control. However, the applicant made no claim that fifty Muslim youths besieged the school, and stated at the hearing that the police had never attended the school. The letter from Ghana Police also stated that several attempts had been made to attack the applicant and his family, and that police had provided some security for him. However, this was not consistent with the applicant’s evidence.
b.The letter from the Headmaster of [School 1] dated [January] 2019 states that a few minutes after the relevant class the applicant was teaching, the headmaster saw eight people holding sticks and talking loudly and angrily, which was not consistent with the applicant’s narrative of events. The headmaster also stated that he had hid the applicant in a storeroom for a whole night due to threats, which was not an event the applicant claimed took place.
Additionally, I note the letters from Ghana Police and the Ghana Education Service were dated [January] 2019, and the letter from [School 1] was dated [January] 2019. This was only one or two days after the applicant’s interview with the delegate on 7 January 2019, where he was asked to provide corroborative evidence. The applicant said he spoke to the headmaster at [School 1] about getting the reports and they were emailed to him. The headmaster spoke to the Ghana Education Service and they spoke to the police. I find it difficult to accept that in these circumstances, the letters could have been prepared in such a short period of time, particularly from the Ghana Police and Ghana Education Service. This gives rise to a concern about their authenticity. I note also that in the decision record, the delegate raised several concerns with the documents and didn’t accept they were genuine documents produced by the parties claimed. As I have stated above, these documents are of very limited value in corroborating the applicant’s claims. They do not overcome my concerns with inconsistencies in the applicant’s own evidence, and in fact add to the lack of clarity about events that occurred after the initial classroom dispute.
Additionally, at no point in his written application, at interview with the delegate, or at his hearing before the Tribunal, has the applicant been able to name or identify any particular individual, or parent, or student who he claims threatened or harassed him, or who he is afraid will threaten, harm, or kill him on return to Ghana. This also causes me to doubt the applicant’s account of events and whether the dispute with students, parents, and/or family members was as serious or significant as he claims. Had the applicant been repeatedly threatened, harassed, and had people come to his house at night, I expect that he would be able to name one or more of the persons involved and whom he fears harm from in the future.
I find that the applicant has embellished the significance of the classroom dispute, the reactions of the parents, and the events that followed in order to strengthen his claims for protection. In light of my findings, I do not accept the following past events:
a.That parents or other family members of the students attended the school brandishing weapons such as sticks, chains or belts on one or more occasions.
b.That unknown people came to the applicant’s home in the night and made loud noises, threw toilet waste and food at his home, or tried to break the door or windows.
c.That a pawpaw was thrown at him by the students’ parents.
d.That he was threatened with physical harm, or that his life was threatened by the students’ parents or families.
Is there a real chance the applicant will be persecuted or a real risk he will suffer significant harm in the reasonably foreseeable future?
On the applicant’s evidence, I am not convinced the parents or students would continue to be angry at the applicant, or hold a grudge against or animosity towards him, because of a heated classroom debate in January 2018, or because parents thought the applicant was trying to indoctrinate their children in Christianity. It has now been more than six years since the events transpired, since the applicant ceased working at the school or teaching, since he left the [Town] area, and since he left Ghana entirely. Given this passage of time and because I do not accept the applicant was harmed or threatened as he claims, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the students or their families would seek to harm or threaten the applicant in any way should he return to Ghana. I do not accept that the consequences of the initial classroom dispute were as significant as the applicant claims, and I reject his claim that unknown or unnamed people will try to kill him. I consider this is entirely implausible and disproportionate to the events that I do accept took place.
I have considered the applicant’s evidence that he spoke to a friend in November or December 2023 who warned him that ‘they were still after him’. However, I place limited weight on this given the applicant has not provided any corroborative evidence of any ongoing threats or interest in him, and because it is not supported by his other evidence that his family have not been contacted or threatened. Were the students and families so motivated to find and harm or threaten the applicant, it is unclear why they would not have threatened or contacted his family to seek his whereabouts.
Were the applicant to return to Ghana in the reasonably foreseeable future, I find that he would return to [his hometown] where his mother, two [sisters] and extended family reside. The applicant gave evidence that he would not be able to reside with his mother and one sister because his mother only has a small room, and he needs to be able to provide for his mum and continue to send them money. He said he could not live with his other sister because she is not working and has health issues. Despite this evidence, I find that he would return to [his hometown] because of his close family connections in that area. The applicant also gave evidence that he had previously lived with extended family in [his hometown], who he described as cousins, and had assisted them on their poultry farm. While I acknowledge the applicant’s evidence was that he had ‘lost contact’ with his extended family, I do not consider this is a barrier to him returning to [his hometown] or staying with them for a period of time if necessary, given that his sisters continue to reside in the same area and could make contact with the extended family on behalf of the applicant if necessary. As such, I find the applicant’s extended family in [his hometown] would serve as another reason why he would return there and may be able to again provide him work and accommodation.
The applicant’s evidence was that he lived in the town of [Town] because he was teaching at schools there. He made no claim to have any other connection to this town. As such, given he has no employment, or family, or any other apparent motivation to go to [Town], I find that he would not go there.
While the applicant claimed the ‘issue had spread’ in his visa application, I do not accept this. I note the applicant’s oral evidence was that he lived in Accra for a couple of weeks until he travelled to Australia [in] March 2018 and he did not claim to have experienced any problems or harm while there. Additionally, his evidence was that his family who lived in [his hometown] had not experienced any problems or threats either at the time of the events in 2018 or in the approximately six years since.
I do not accept the applicant’s claims that he would be at risk of harm throughout the whole of Ghana because religion is an issue throughout Ghana, because the families he had the dispute with have family everywhere, his pictures have been circulated, or because everyone knows everyone in Ghana. As stated above, I do not accept that the affected students or their families would continue to hold any anger or animosity toward the applicant, and I do not accept they would seek to harm him anywhere in Ghana. In a country of some 34 million people, I also find that the risk of the applicant being identified anywhere in Ghana is implausible, remote or far-fetched. I do not accept that it will become known by the families that the applicant has returned to Ghana or to [his home town].
In light of all of the above findings, I am not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will be persecuted, or a real risk he will suffer significant harm, for any of the reasons he claims, in the reasonably foreseeable future, should he return to Ghana.
The country information cited above does not support a conclusion that Christians in Ghana face persecution or significant harm on the basis of their religion. The applicant did not claim, and I do not accept, he faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm simply as a Christian, in the reasonably foreseeable future, should he return to Ghana.
Conclusion
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) or (aa). There is no evidence that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(b) or (c) 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 under review.
Date(s) of hearing:               17 July 2024
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.
…