2010094 (Refugee)

This case concerned an appeal by a primary applicant against the delegate's decision to refuse protection visas for himself and his family. The applicant, a Pentecostal Christian of the Jaba ethnic group from Kaduna State, Nigeria, claimed a well-founded fear of persecution due to his religious and ethnic background. He asserted that he had suffered psychological harm from past religious and ethnic violence in his home state and feared being killed by Boko Haram or the Muslim Fulani Herdsmen, and that the Nigerian authorities would not protect him.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the primary applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under s 5J(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and if so, whether there was a real chance of persecution upon return to Nigeria. Alternatively, the Tribunal had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Nigeria, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to consider relevant country information and guidelines, including those prepared by the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the delegate's findings, which had assessed the risk from Boko Haram as remote due to their activities being largely confined to the Northeast, and the risk from Fulani Herdsmen as remote given their primary targeting of rural farmers, a group the applicant, as a healthcare professional, was not considered to be. The applicant's solicitor provided extensive submissions and attachments, detailing the applicant's personal history, including childhood exposure to religious crises, family relocation due to the 'shariah crisis', loss of friends in religious conflicts, abandonment of family farmland due to fear of Fulani Herdsmen, and ongoing fear of attacks on Christians and churches. The applicant also claimed a lack of protection from Nigerian authorities and an inability to relocate within Nigeria due to widespread danger. The Tribunal noted that the 'real risk' test for significant harm imposed the same standard as the 'real chance' test for well-founded fear.

The Tribunal ultimately affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visas. It found that the circumstances of the primary applicant's case did not meet the threshold for a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Nigeria. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under the Act.