2007150 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, who was born in Nigeria, identified as belonging to the Igbo ethnic group and as a Christian. The applicant's claims for protection were based on his ethnicity and political opinion, specifically in relation to the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB). The Tribunal was required to determine whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant's removal to Nigeria, he would suffer significant harm, or whether there was a real chance he would suffer serious harm, thereby establishing Australia's protection obligations under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Tribunal considered the applicant's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to establish his claims, noting that the applicant had only provided a statutory declaration from 2017 and no further evidence despite the hearing being scheduled for late 2022. The Tribunal applied Ministerial Direction No. 84 and relevant guidelines, including the Refugee Law Guidelines and Complementary Protection Guidelines. It was established that the mere assertion of a fear of persecution or risk of harm does not satisfy the statutory requirements; the applicant must prove that such a risk exists and that the feared harm amounts to significant harm. The Tribunal also considered the provisions of section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which defines the criteria for a protection visa, including the definition of a refugee and the circumstances under which Australia has protection obligations due to a real risk of significant harm.

Having reviewed all the circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that there were not substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would be exposed to a real risk of suffering significant harm upon removal to Nigeria. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. As there was no suggestion that the applicant met the criteria as a family member of someone who did satisfy these provisions, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.