1910071 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the protection visa applications of a husband and wife, referred to as the applicant wife and applicant husband, along with their two daughters. The core of the dispute revolved around the credibility of the applicants' claims and whether, if accepted, these claims met the criteria for a protection visa. The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visas.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether they would suffer significant harm if returned to Nigeria. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicants' assertions regarding objections to their marriage, ostracism by their families, and potential harm, including female genital mutilation, under Nigerian customary law. The Tribunal also considered the applicants' migration history, including delays in their application and the making of key claims, as well as the relevance of a criminal conviction against the applicant husband in Australia.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on assessing the credibility of the applicants' claims in light of their inconsistent evidence and the delays in presenting their case. While acknowledging the applicants' stated fears of harm and ostracism due to their marriage and ethnicity, the Tribunal found that these claims, as presented, did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real chance of suffering significant harm as defined by the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal considered relevant country information for Nigeria but ultimately concluded that the applicants had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate not to grant the applicants protection visas. The Tribunal found that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958, nor did they meet the requirements for being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies section 36(2)(a) or (aa) and holds a protection visa.