2004305 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, a citizen of Kenya, claimed he feared persecution in Kenya due to his homosexuality or perceived homosexuality, mental health issues including a psychotic episode, suicidal thoughts, domestic violence from his stepfather, and an inability to subsist due to his mother's financial difficulties and the impending sale of her home. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a refugee nexus reason, or if he was owed complementary protection.

The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's credibility and the veracity of his claims. Key issues included the applicant's alleged homosexuality, his claims of mental health issues and memory impairment due to alcohol, the alleged mistreatment by his stepfather and stepfamily, and his purported inability to subsist in Kenya. The Tribunal considered the applicant's inconsistent evidence, the lack of corroborative material for his claims, and his failure to provide sufficient evidence to support his assertions regarding his mental health, his sexual orientation, and his financial circumstances.

The Tribunal found the applicant to be an unreliable witness, noting significant inconsistencies between his initial application, his evidence to the Department, and his oral and written evidence presented at the hearing. The Tribunal did not accept his claim that his memory was significantly affected by alcohol, nor did it accept his claims of homosexuality, a psychotic episode, or the likelihood of serious harm from his stepfather or stepfamily. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would face significant economic hardship threatening his capacity to subsist or that he would be denied accommodation in Kenya. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution under s 36(2)(a) of the Act, nor did he meet the criteria for complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa). The decision under review was affirmed.