2010168 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Liberian national. The applicant claimed to fear persecution upon return to Liberia due to his experiences during the civil war, including witnessing his father's death, being separated from his family, and serving as a child soldier. He also raised concerns about the lack of adequate mental health services in Liberia and the potential for harm from individuals who might recognise him from his past. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution under section 5J of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or faced a real risk of significant harm under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, including his statements about his traumatic childhood and subsequent experiences, alongside independent country information regarding the current situation in Liberia. Key legal issues included assessing the applicant's credibility, particularly in light of inconsistencies in his account and the passage of time since his departure from Liberia, and determining whether his fears were objectively substantiated by a "real chance" of persecution or significant harm. The Tribunal also examined whether the applicant belonged to a particular social group that would place him at risk, such as former child soldiers or individuals with mental health issues, and whether effective protection measures were available in Liberia.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged the applicant's traumatic past and vulnerabilities, including his experiences as a child soldier and his mental health history. However, it found that Liberia had achieved a significant degree of peace and stability since the end of its civil war in 2003. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a "real chance" of persecution or a "real risk" of significant harm from former combatants, individuals seeking retribution for his alleged actions, or due to his ethnicity or mental health status. The Tribunal noted that while economic hardship and crime were prevalent in Liberia, these were risks faced by the general population and did not amount to persecution or significant harm directed at the applicant personally for the reasons specified in the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's claims regarding the lack of mental health services were not sufficiently substantiated to meet the threshold for significant harm, particularly as he had not consistently accessed such services in Australia.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for being a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), nor was it satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm upon removal to Liberia under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.