1920202 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant from Sierra Leone seeking a protection visa. The applicant, an athlete, claimed to have suffered persecution in his home country due to his involvement in petitions and protests concerning government corruption and lack of support for sports. He alleged he was tortured, detained, and that a friend was killed, leading him to flee Sierra Leone and eventually arrive in Australia as a visa overstayer. The AAT was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on assessing the credibility and plausibility of the applicant's claims. While acknowledging some low-level activity such as petitioning for funding, the Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be vague, inconsistent, and implausible in key aspects. Specifically, the Tribunal did not accept the applicant's assertions regarding his arrest, detention, and subsequent hiding, nor the hiding of his partner. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the applicant's statements regarding his family's whereabouts and their involvement in his alleged persecution. The Tribunal applied the principles of assessing claims for protection, considering Ministerial Direction No. 84 and relevant guidelines, and concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution based on political opinion, nor had he demonstrated a real risk of significant harm if returned to Sierra Leone.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements for the grant of a protection visa. The Tribunal concluded that Australia did not owe protection obligations to the applicant under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).