1929111 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Kenya, sought review of a decision by the Minister to refuse to grant a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in Kenya due to his actual and imputed political opinions, his membership in a particular social group, and his alleged mental illness. The applicant also argued that he qualified for complementary protection.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of his actual or imputed political opinion, or membership of a particular social group, or whether he would suffer significant harm if returned to Kenya, thereby entitling him to complementary protection. Specifically, the court considered whether the applicant's alleged perception of holding different beliefs to the Mungiki, his rumoured status as a witness against those summoned by the International Criminal Court, and his psychiatric condition constituted grounds for protection.

The court found that the Refugee Convention criteria were not met. However, it determined that the applicant's psychiatric condition, coupled with the general situation in Kenya, meant that he would likely suffer significant harm if returned. This harm engaged the complementary protection provisions. The court concluded that the original decision had failed to adequately consider the evidence relating to the applicant's mental health and its implications for his safety. Consequently, the court remitted the decision to the Minister for reconsideration.