2005778 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse the applicant, a citizen of Ghana, a protection visa. The applicant had arrived in Australia in January 2016 and applied for the protection visa in May 2016, after a nomination for a further temporary visa was withdrawn. The applicant claimed he feared harm from the Fulani group and other unspecified individuals if returned to Ghana, citing corruption within the police and authorities as a reason for their inability to protect him. He also expressed concern about being forced to assume a chieftaincy role in his hometown, which he believed would be dangerous and restrict his freedom.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a refugee nexus reason, or if he was owed complementary protection, under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility and substance of the applicant's claims regarding threats from the Fulani group and the imposition of the chieftaincy, in light of available country information and the legal definitions of persecution and significant harm. The Tribunal also considered whether effective protection measures were available to the applicant in Ghana.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding the chieftaincy and threats from the Fulani group. While acknowledging the applicant's stated fear of being forced into the chieftaincy and the alleged threats, the Tribunal found no evidence to substantiate these claims beyond the applicant's own assertions. Country information suggested that the chieftaincy was not vacant or was held by a caretaker, and there was no evidence presented of specific threats from the Fulani group or others that would constitute persecution. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, and therefore did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa.