2007121 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for a protection visa by a Nigerian national. The applicant claimed to have been an active member of the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) and later the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), alleging that he had suffered persecution, including arrest, torture, and threats to his life and family, from Nigerian authorities. The applicant also asserted that he had a minimal political profile and that his involvement with these groups was not widely known. The decision reviewed was made by the Refugee Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, as a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa), by establishing substantial grounds for believing there was a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Nigeria. This involved assessing the applicant's credibility, the nature and extent of his involvement with MASSOB and IPOB, the veracity of his claims of persecution, and the availability of effective protection or internal relocation within Nigeria.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. While acknowledging the applicant's stated experiences of threats, arrest, and torture, the Tribunal found credibility concerns regarding his level of political involvement and the specific incidents described. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had a history of providing false information to the Department, which impacted his overall credibility. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, nationality, political opinion, or membership of a particular social group, nor that there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Nigeria. The Tribunal concluded that effective protection measures were available and that internal relocation was a reasonable option, or that the risks described were faced by the population generally.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant protection visas, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958. Consequently, the applicant was unable to satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c) and was therefore not eligible for the visa.