2012886 (Refugee)

[2020] AATA 5044

2012886 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 5044 (30 October 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  2012886

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Liberia

MEMBER:Christopher Smolicz

DATE: 30 October 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 30 October 2020 at 10:41 am

CATCHWORDS

REFUGEE – protection visa – Liberia – imputed political opinion – grandfather’s connection to former president – citizenship and ethnicity – returnee after long residence in other countries – ability to subsist – threats from family of friend accidentally killed – humanitarian visa cancelled on character grounds – immigration detention – willingness to live in country where he spent time as refugee – country information – end of civil war and political change – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H(1), 5J(1), 36(2), 65, 189(1), 501(3A), 501CA(4)

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASE

MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 10 August 2020 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

2. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

3. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.

4. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a) of the Act. In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).

5. Under s.5J(1) of the Act, a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a  person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-5LA of the Act, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

6. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in s.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

   Mandatory considerations

7. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs (the Department).

8. At the time of this decision, there were no country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) for Liberia expressly for the purpose of protection status determination.

9. In assessing the applicant’s claims for protection, the Tribunal has had regard to open source (publicly available) country information which provides historical, political and social information about Liberia. The information relied on by the Tribunal comes from a wide variety of sources which includes government and non-government organisations, academics journals, media reports and reference works. The Tribunal has also had regard to general information on Liberia referred to in the delegate’s decision, relevant extracts of which are set out in the attachment to this decision.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10. The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds because:

    ·     he caused the death of a Liberian man in Australia [in a circumstance] and the victim’s family in Liberia will seek retribution for the death;

    ·     he fears harm from members of the current government who were affiliated with Charles Taylor’s regime;

    ·     of his Krahn ethnicity and his family name;

    ·     his grandfather’s association with the previous president Samuel Doe;

    ·     he is a returnee from a western country;

    ·     he fears a resurgence of the Ebola epidemic;

    ·     he left Liberia as a child and has no family connections and will not be able to subsist; and

    ·     of general political and economic instability.

11. The Tribunal has assessed the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively having regard to the country information details below.

12. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    Background

13. The applicant is [Age 1] years old. He was born in [Year 1] in [City], Liberia, during the 14-year civil war. He speaks English, is from the Krahn ethnic group and is Christian. The applicant’s mother and father were born in Liberia and they are now Australian citizens.

14. With the assistance of the United Nations Refugee Agency the applicant and his family managed to escape Liberia in December 1991. He was raised in the [Name 1] Refugee Camp in [Country 1] between [December] 1991 and [December] 2002, and the [Name 2] Refugee Camp in [Country 2] between 6 December 2002 and 16 February 2006.

15. The applicant grew up in these refugee camps until one of his [relative] (who had been accepted into Australia as a refugee) sponsored the applicant and his remaining family to come to Australia on a Global Special Humanitarian (Subclass 202) visa (GSH visa) in January 2007 when he was [Age 2] years old.

16. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] January 2007 as a dependant on his father, [Mr A] ([Date of birth]), with 5 additional family members.

17. [In] August 2014 the applicant was convicted of [an] aggravated offence. He was sentenced to 2 years, 6 months and 2 weeks imprisonment.

18. On 4 April 2016 his GSH visa was mandatorily cancelled under s.501(3A) of the Act (character grounds).

19. [In] March 2017 the applicant was released from criminal custody and detained under s.189(1) of the Act and remains in immigration detention.

20. On 13 September 2017 the cancellation of the GSH visa was not revoked under s.501CA(4) of the Act.

21. On 7 December 2017 the cancellation of the GSH visa was affirmed by the General Division of this Tribunal.[1] The applicant applied to the Federal Court for judicial review, but his application was out of time.

    [1] BPJK and MIBP [2017] AATA 2560 (7 December 2017)

22. On 5 March 2018 the applicant applied for the Protection (Subclass 866) visa which is the subject of this application. The visa was refused on 10 August 2020.

    Summary of substantive claims

23. The applicant made the following claims in support of his protection visa application:

    ·     He has never been a citizen of any country and is stateless.

    ·     He claims the Krahn ethnic group were targeted during the civil war and continue to be targeted today.

    ·     The applicant’s (paternal) grandfather was a [Profession] to former President Samuel Doe at the time that Charles Taylor overthrew the government and killed President Doe [September 1990]. The applicant claims Taylor then targeted the families of Doe’s employees which prompted the family to escape from Liberia.

    ·     Charles Taylor’s supporters remain in high positions in Liberia.

    ·     The applicant also fears harm as a returnee from the West.

    ·     The applicant claims that he will be killed in Liberia just as his aunts, uncles and other relatives were murdered.

    ·     The applicant’s entire family is in Australia, he knows no one in Liberia. He has never lived in Liberia.

    ·     His family name of ‘[Surname]’ is a ‘hunted name’.

    ·     The applicant also fears that the Ebola crisis that killed over 6,000 people is not yet resolved.

    ·     The party that lost the election [January 2018] is threatening war.

    ·     The applicant claims Liberia has not recovered from the war that ended in 2003.

24. The applicant took part in a protection visa interview with the Department on 26 March 2018. According to the delegate’s decision, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal, the applicant maintained that members of the Taylor regime hold the positions of Vice President and Finance Minister in the current Liberian government, and would recognise him by his family name and he would be killed like other Krahn remaining in Liberia who were loyal to former President Doe. He claims Prince Johnson, who was Taylor’s right-hand man, is still killing Krahn people.

25. The applicant claims he will be easily identified because he cannot speak his own language.

26. He will be targeted by the family of the victim whose death he was responsible for in [an incident] in Australia ([Year 2]). The applicant said that he and the victim were best friends and members of the same community. He apologised to the victim’s mother and the victim’s family in Australia were accepting and the mother understood it was a mistake. However the family members in Liberia are not intelligent people and are waiting for him to come back home. The family will consider him a threat and will target him as payback. When asked who was waiting for him the applicant answered: ‘people in the community’.

27. The applicant said he has not lived in Africa for a long time and it will be difficult for him to establish a new life. People cannot survive in Africa unless they are involved in crime and have a different cultural way of doing things.

28. In a letter to the Department dated 12 February 2018, in which the applicant requests the reinstatement of his GSH visa, he reiterates his claim that he fled persecution in his native country.

29. He lived in extremely poor conditions in a refugee camp in [Country 1] in fear of the civil war back in Liberia. He claims there have been political threats about the past election and the conviction of Charles Taylor by the UN. He fears the ongoing political unrest and potential return of Ebola.

30. The applicant’s [relative] in Australia ([Ms B]) provided a letter of support. She claims that the night the applicant was born in Liberia, the family was attacked by rebels which resulted in the deaths of four of the applicant’s [close family members] who were protecting the applicant’s mother. She claims the [Surname] family is still at risk of harm in Liberia and that no [Surname] family members remain in the country.

31. The Tribunal has also considered letters of support from the applicant’s family and friends in Australia which are located on the Department’s file.

    Tribunal hearing

32. The applicant took part in a video conference hearing before the Tribunal on 30 September 2020.

33. The Tribunal questioned the applicant about his citizenship. The applicant said he was born in Liberia, left Liberia during the civil war, was never issued with a Liberian passport and he is not an Australian citizen. His parents and grandparents were born in Liberia and his mother and father hold Liberian passports. The Tribunal has had regard to the delegate’s decision and notes that information provided in his father’s 2005 GSH visa application form states that his father was a Liberian citizen.

34. The applicant declared in his protection visa application that his citizenship at birth is Liberian (Q14). He also claims that he does not have current citizenship and is stateless. 

35. For protection visa applications made on or after 16 December 2014, for persons who have a nationality, the ‘receiving country’ is the country of nationality. Whether a person is a national of a particular country is to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country. For persons without a nationality, the receiving country is the country of former habitual residence, with the added qualification that it does not matter whether return to that country would be possible: s.5(1) of the Act.

36. The Tribunal referred the applicant to country information cited the delegate’s decision and noted that according to Liberia’s nationality law (Aliens and Nationality Law 1973), children born in Liberia are able to acquire Liberian citizenship at birth.[2]

    [2] Liberia: Aliens and Nationality Law [Liberia],  15 May 1973, section 20(a) available at: >

    The applicant did not dispute the delegate’s findings that he is a Liberian citizen by birth when questioned at hearing. There is no evidence that the applicant has renounced his Liberian citizenship nor acquired citizenship from another country. The Tribunal has had regard to the Aliens and Nationality Law of Liberia and is satisfied that the applicant is a national of Liberia and he is not stateless.  

37. The Tribunal has assessed the applicant’s claim for protection against Liberia as the receiving country.

38. The applicant said he left Liberia as a young child and his father has no family remaining in Liberia. His mother’s family moved to [Country 3] and it is possible his mother has some family in Liberia, but she has never told him.

39. Since he arrived in Australia his parents have separated, and he has little to do with his father. He has no knowledge about what his parents did for a living in Liberia.

40. The Tribunal referred the applicant to the delegate’s decision and noted that he was diagnosed with PTSD at the time he was sentenced for his criminal offending in 2014. The Tribunal questioned the applicant about his health. The applicant said he was advised to take an MRI scan after the [incident] but did not follow through. The applicant said he undertakes daily exercise in detention and was now in good health and was not taking any medication. He described his mental health as ‘100 percent’.

41. The applicant said he fears he will not be able to find work and survive if he returned alone to Liberia. He has undertaken studies in Australia (Certificate IV in [Subject]) and his goal is to start his own [business]. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he could work as [an Occupation] in Liberia. The applicant said that potentially he could but in reality, there are no opportunities in Liberia because people don’t spend money on [a service] like in Australia.

42. The applicant said he speaks ‘Pigeon English’ with his parents and would be able to communicate in English in Liberia.

43. The applicant said he grew up a in [Country 2] where he made friends and learnt to communicate in the local language. The Tribunal noted that Liberia was a member of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) which allowed free movement and residence of people from member states.

44. There are 15 member states of ECOWAS including Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo.  The Tribunal notes that ECOWAS treaties and protocols provide member states with formal guarantees of free movement and residency between countries within the ECOWAS region.[3] The ECOWAS protocols permit nationals of ECOWAS countries visa-free entry and the right to work and reside in all ECOWAS countries provided they have valid travel documents, an international health certificate and are otherwise not inadmissible.[4]

    [3] ‘Protecting refugees and other persons on the move in the ECOWAS space’, IOM and UNHCR, 1 January 2011, CIS22697,  p.23, < of ‘Across Artificial Borders: An assessment of labour migration in the ECOWAS region’ - Liberia country report’, ACP Observatory on Migration, 1 January 2014, CIS2F827D92317 ,   < ‘Protecting refugees and other persons on the move in the ECOWAS space’, IOM and UNHCR, 1 January 2011, CIS22697,  p.42, <>

    The applicant gave evidence at the hearing that he would be happy to live and work in [Country 2] where he spent time growing up as a child and understands the local language, but is unsure if criminal convictions may prevent him from traveling.

45. He is not married but has a partner in Australia who would like to send him some money if he went back to Liberia, but she is looking after four children and is in recept of government benefits.

46. The Tribunal noted that his [relative] ([Ms B]) wrote a reference letter to the Department stating that she is able to provide him with support if he was released from detention. The Tribunal asked the applicant if his [relative] would be able to provide some initial assistance to him if he returned to Liberia. The applicant said he was close to his [relative] and she would provide him with assistance, but it would be difficult because she is also is in recept of benefits and has a family. The applicant agreed that the Australian currency in Liberia would be worth more due to the exchange rate but claims most people use US dollars.

47. The applicant told the Tribunal he has never been involved in politics.

48. The Tribunal referred the applicant to the delegate’s decision and noted there have been positive developments in the political landscape in Liberia since he and his family escaped in 1991. The applicant agreed that the situation in Liberia is significantly different to what it was when he left. The applicant maintained, however, that his parents are from the Krahn tribe which was persecuted by Charles Taylors’ regime. The applicant claims that the fact his parents had to escape as refugees and were granted protection in Australia is indicative of the persecution they faced in Liberia.

49. The Tribunal questioned the applicant as to why his family name would cause him problems if he returned to Liberia. The applicant said the name ‘[Surname]’ is associated with the Krahn tribe and he would be identified as member of the tribe by his name in Liberia.

50. He fears returning to Liberia because there are people in the current government who were part of Taylor’s regime who persecuted his family. The applicant said that Taylor’s rebels persecuted all people politically associated with his tribe and that Doe’s supporters and all his relatives that remained in Liberia were murdered and raped. When he and his family escaped from Liberia and moved from [Country 2] to [Country 1] his father changed his name to ‘[A]’ because he feared that Taylor’s rebels in the refugee camp would identify his tribe by his family name ([Surname]).

1. The Tribunal questioned the applicant if he would be able to return and live in a part of Liberia with a majority Krahn population such as [City]. The applicant agreed that [City] is an area where there is a large Krahn population and said he could ‘100 percent’ return to [City], however, he has no family left in his home area and that would make it difficult for him to survive.

2. The Tribunal questioned the applicant about how his association with his grandfather ([Mr C]) would put his life in danger if he returned to Liberia. The applicant said his grandfather was politically associated with Doe and this would put his life in danger.

3. The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain the nature of his grandfather’s relationship with Doe. The applicant said his grandfather was Doe’s [Profession]. After further questioning the applicant he said his grandfather’s connection with Doe was not political; his grandfather had university [qualifications] from Liberia and operated a [Business] in [City] in the 1980’s. The applicant said many people from his tribe would come to his grandfather’s business, including Samuel Doe. The applicant claims there was a strong tribal connection between local Krahn people and his grandfather. The applicant said that he has heard from his father that his grandfather was threatened by Charles Taylor’s rebels and that’s why they escaped when he was born.

4. The Tribunal questioned the applicant about his relationship with the family of the victim who’s death he caused [in a circumstance] in [Year 2]. The applicant said the victim was a close Liberian friend. They first met in a refugee camp in [Country 2] when their families fled Liberia and the victim’s family arrived first in Australia. The applicant said he refers the to victim’s parents as his mother and father. The applicant said the parents have forgiven him and don’t blame him for the death of their son and understand that it was an accident.

5. The Tribunal asked the applicant if the victim had any family who remained in Liberia. The applicant said he did not know if the victim had any family left behind in Liberia. After further questioning the applicant changed his evidence and said that the victim did have family in Liberia. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he had changed evidence. The applicant said that he was very close with the victim’s family in Australia and has no personal contact with his family in Liberia. The applicant said that he received threats on [Social media] from people in the Liberian community after the accident was reported in the media. The Tribunal asked if he knew the names of people who contacted him on [Social media]. The applicant said he did not know who sent the messages and stopped looking at his account. The Tribunal asked the applicant when he was last threated on social media. The applicant said it was a long time ago and he could not recall.

   Well founded fear of persecution

   Current political environment

6. In October 2017, 73 legislative seats were contested for the House of Representatives in elections that domestic and international observers considered generally free and fair[5]. On December 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the first-round election results. On December 26, George Weah was elected president for a 6-year term in a peaceful runoff election that was generally considered to be free and fair by international observers[6].

   [5] OGD95BE927401: ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017 - Liberia’, US Department of State, 20 April 2018 ⁸¹ 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Liberia', United States Department of State, 11 March 2020, 20200312131058, p.1

   [6] 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Liberia', United States Department of State, 11 March 2020, 20200312131058, p.1 

7. The Tribunal notes that following excerpts from President’s Weah’s inaugural address on 22 January 2018 suggest the President is not seeking to exploit ethnic division as a means of maintaining power:

   We should all strive to put aside our differences and join hands in the task of nation building. We must learn how to celebrate our diversity without drawing lines of divisions in our new Liberia. We belong to Liberia first before we belong to our inherited tribes, or chosen counties. We must not allow political loyalties to prevent us from collaborating in the national interest. We must respect each other and act as neighbours, regardless of religious, social and economic differences.’[7]

   [7] >

   The Tribunal has had regard to media reports which confirm that in January 2018 President Weah appointed some members of his cabinet who include former political opponents and people with connections to Charles Taylor’s regime. For example it is reported that the foreign minister was close to the former president Ellen Johnson Sirleaf (Senator Gbehzohngar Findley). Weah also appointed Charles Taylors’ former wife Jewel Howard Taylor as vice president. Reports confirm, however, that Howard Taylor was able to secure the position of vice president because of her support from the people of Bong County, not her past marriage with Taylor.[8] Reports confirm that current Senator in the Liberian government, Prince Yormie Johnson, was a warlord during the first round of the civil war and  headed the rebel faction, the Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia (INPFL).  According to Liberia’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC), the INPFL can be held liable for 2 percent of the total violations – 2,588 – tallied in its final report.  In addition to killing Doe, the TRC documented other crimes committed by Johnson’s INPFL which include the apparent killing of native Krahns and Mandingoes who were captured from ECOMOG by the INPFL.[9]

   [8] >

   The US Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2019 for Liberia, published in March 2020, reports that:

   Impunity for individuals who committed human rights abuses, including atrocities during the civil wars that ended in 2003, remained a serious problem. The government made intermittent but limited attempts to investigate and prosecute officials accused of current abuses, whether in the security forces or elsewhere in the government. Security forces and law enforcement officials undertook some training to increase respect for human rights.[10]

   [10] 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Liberia', United States Department of State, 11 March 2020, 20200312131058, p.1  

8. The Tribunal notes that a report titled Mapping Opportunities for the Consolidation of Peace in Liberia: ‘Voices from the Countryside’, attempted to systematically identify and analyse Liberian conflict issues and potential conflict drivers. The reported identified that the single most commonly cited conflict driver in all counties was disputes over land use, tenure and inheritance and are pervasive across Liberia (land/property). The existence of ethnic tension was only an issue in 3 of the15 counties – Lofa, Grand Gadesh and River Gee.

9. The report also examined motives for conflict within the country and found that:

   The motives for conflict tend to be driven more by citizens’ grievances about patterns of social injustices which may be perpetuated mostly by being disadvantage and marginalisation. Accusation of disadvantage is the leading complaint reported in all counties. In Grand Gedeh and Sinoe, concerns about ethnicity are highlighted. In Montserrado, misuse of political office is the notable concern for citizens.  Dissatisfaction about poor management of resources is another reported issue/ concern by the citizens. (P10)

   …..

   According to the study findings, there are abundant opportunities for reducing division among ethnic groups. Respondents were confident that virtually all available resources and strategies would make meaningful contributions in this regard. The most important actions for inter-ethnic harmony are reconciliation programmes (78.3%), inclusive dialogue (72.5%), civic education in schools (71.8%) and sports and recreation (70.5%). There was strong optimism across the country that once the appropriate interventions are inaugurated, inter-ethnic harmony can become a reality once again. Nevertheless, the level of enthusiasm or prospect reported in Sinoe, Rivercess, Grand Kru and Montserrado was not as bright, as respondents in these counties were less hopeful of the restoration of inter-ethnic harmony. (p18-19)

10. A 2011 study undertaken by the University of California, ‘Berkley Talking peace: A population based survey on attitudes about security, dispute resolution and post-conflict reconstruction in Liberia’ states that:

    Although 49% of the respondents identified ethnicity and ethnic divisions as one of the causes of the civil wars, few respondents (4%) identified ethnic divisions or tribal violence as current factors of insecurity. However, 8% of the population reported experiencing problems along ethnic lines. Such problems were most frequently reported in Lofa (16%) and Grand Gedeh (10%).

11. Amongst those surveyed, 5% reported problems with the Mandingo ethnic group, 1% with Gio and 1% with Krahn.  Land disputes were the most common type of dispute,[11] followed by domestic violence, loan repayments, and noise and disturbances.[12] Liberia is reported by Freedom House to have had a period of more than a decade of peace and stability following the end of the civil war in 2002.  The first peaceful transition between leaders occurred in 2017.[13]

    [11] Ibid at p.47

    [12] Ibid p.49

    [13] >

    In 2012, Charles Taylor was found guilty of war crimes by the Special Court for Sierra Leone for crimes committed in Sierra Leone and was sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment.[14] 

    [14] >

    As detailed above the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) closed its mission in Liberia in March 2018, following the completion of the 14 year long mandate. Alexander Zouev, Assistant Secretary‑General for Rule of Law and Security Institutions in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, stated that this marked a historic milestone and turning point for Liberia who has for nearly 25 years required a constant presence on the Council’s agenda: ‘It would be no exaggeration to characterize the Liberia of 2003 as a country in ruins, with a traumatized population and a predatory State,’ he said.  Spotlighting some elements of the Secretary‑General’s report, he said that while national institutions had demonstrated their ability to plan, organize and secure sensitive political events such as elections, the Government would still face the challenge of ensuring that those institutions received the necessary financial and other investments.[15]

    [15] >

    The Tribunal has also had regard to the final progress report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Mission in Liberia dated 13 April 2018, which makes the following observations about the change in the political landscapes of Liberia since the end of the civil war:

    When Ellen Johnson Sirleaf handed presidential power over to George Manneh Weah at noon on 22 January 2018 in Monrovia, thousands of Liberian citizens and dozens of regional and international leaders witnessed a moment symbolically concluding a historical arch spanning more than a century and a half of constitutionally sanctioned exclusion of the vast majority of the population, a quarter century of political crisis, 14 years of successive brutal civil wars and nearly 15 subsequent years of laying the foundations for recovering from conflict. The inauguration of President Weah was a milestone symbolizing the burgeoning democratic maturity of the oldest republic in Africa and its progress along the path of post-conflict transformation.

    …

    Liberia is a country fully at peace with itself and with its neighbours. Consequently, on 30 March UNMIL concluded its mandate. It is important to recall the historical context: the Liberia to which UNMIL was deployed in October 2003 was a completely failed State in which three warring factions controlled sections of Monrovia and the interior; the public sector had collapsed; the infrastructure lay in ruins; the national police and the army had disintegrated into various factions; what remained of the security sector was dominated by a proliferation of agencies created by successive regimes to persecute political opponents and repress citizens; the justice sector had disintegrated; more than a third of the population was displaced; an estimated 80 per cent of women and girls were victims of sexual violence; and criminal economic exchange, dominated by the illegal exploitation of natural resources, was thriving. Despite that very low starting point, Liberia has had a remarkable journey of transformation, accompanied by UNMIL, and is on the cusp of a new era that promises greater inclusiveness and equitable participation of all Liberian citizens in the political and economic space.

    …

    The new Government has inherited many challenges, not least of which are a dire economic situation and the limited progress achieved thus far in addressing the root causes of the conflict in Liberia, removing structural inequalities, enhancing accountable governance and building the democratic foundations of a nation that reflects the will and aspirations of all Liberians. I welcome President Weah’s commitment to fighting corruption, promoting good governance and taking forward national reconciliation, constitutional reform and decentralization. These are critical processes that could help heal the cleavages of the past and build a unified nation for the future. They would also support his pro-poor development agenda, which will help sustain the peace and lay the foundation for sustainable development. His aspiration to transform the hearts and minds of the Liberian people so that they see one another as members of a single family is essential, as, in his words, a family tree can bend, but can never break.

    …

    Consolidating peace requires the full commitment of the Government and citizens to a comprehensive and meaningful process of national reconciliation. I am encouraged by the new administration’s determination to give the national reconciliation process a new impetus underpinned by a political vision, rather than disparate initiatives with limited impact, which characterized past reconciliation efforts. One of the objectives of such a process must be defining and agreeing on a shared sense of nation. This is particularly pertinent and potentially fraught with difficulties for Liberia, as the scars of the conflict, some of which were brought to light during the recent electoral process, have yet to heal. I continue to insist on the importance of adopting legislation that addresses the root causes of the conflict, such as the land reform and decentralization, which should be given priority attention and acted upon without further delay.’ [16]

    [16] >

    The Tribunal has had regard to the country information and finds that the political circumstances in Liberia have changed significantly since the applicant left 29 years ago during the civil war. As detailed above, the UNMIL closed its mission in Liberia in March 2018, following the completion of a 14-year long mandate. Since coming to power President Weah has made commitments to fighting corruption, promoting good governance and taking forward national reconciliation, constitutional reform and decentralization. The UNMIL recognises this as a turning point in the nation’s history and a critical process that has commenced to heal the cleavages of the past and build a unified nation for the future. Against this political background the Tribunal has considered each of the applicant’s claims below.

    Ethnicity and family name

12. The Tribunal has had regard to the claims detailed in the applicant’s father’s 2007 GSH visa application as set out in the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence about his tribe and family in Liberia is consistent with his father’s claims when he first came to Australia as a dependent child.

13. The Tribunal finds the applicant is from the Krahn tribe and was born [City]. The Tribunal notes that [City] is the home of the Krahn tribe. The Tribunal finds that Samuel Doe, the former President of Liberia, was from the Krahn tribe and Grand Gedeh County was his home area.[17]

    [17]   ‘Everyone Scattered’ Experiences of the Liberian Diaspora, Chapter 13, P.357, >

    The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s family name ‘[Surname]’ is the name of a town located in [City] near the border with [Country 1]. The Tribunal accepts that during the civil war the applicant’s family feared persecution in Liberia from rebels loyal to Charles Taylor because they were member of the Krahn tribe which was associated with Samuel Doe.

14. The Tribunal accepts that at that time his father feared he would be identified by his family name which was synonymous with his tribe and the Grand Gedeh County which was seen as Doe’s strong hold. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s father changed his name to distance himself from his tribe and home area and avoid coming to the attention of rebels loyal to Charles Taylor when the family were living as refugees in [Country 2] and [Country 1].

15. The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant returns to Liberia he could be recognised as coming from the Krahn tribe because of his family name and his home area. The Tribunal has, however, had regard to open source information which suggests that ‘[Surname]’ is not an uncommon name in Liberia, particularly in Grand Gedeh County. For example, a search of the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Liberia, teacher’s registration details lists numerous entries for teachers and principals in Liberia with ‘[Surname]’ as their family name.[18] The Tribunal also notes that the former President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf appointed [Mr D], [Government position 1] in 2012 [19] and subsequently he was appointed [Government position 2] in 2017.[20]

    [18] [Reference omitted]

    [20] [Reference omitted]

16. As discussed with the applicant at the hearing, the Tribunal must re-assess the applicant’s claim looking to the reasonably foreseeable future having regard to the current political environment. The Tribunal has had regard to current country information detailed in this decision and finds that there have been significant positive changes in the political landscape since his family escaped from Liberia in 1991.

17. First, the Tribunal finds the applicant left Liberia as child in 1991 and has never been involved in politics in Liberia or Australia. There is no evidence that his parents were politically active in Liberia. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s grandfather was an educated man who studied medicine and operated a [business] in [City] in the 1980s. The Tribunal accepts his grandfather was well known within the Krahn community at the time due to his [business]. The Tribunal is also prepared to accept that Samuel Doe may have been his grandfather’s client at the [Business] at the time.

18. The Tribunal has regard to the applicant’s evidence and does not, however, accept the applicant’s grandfather was politically active or worked for Samuel Doe in any political capacity.  The Tribunal finds the applicant’s grandfather’s association with Samuel Doe is remote. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s grandfather has since passed away and there are no known members of his immediate family left living in Liberia. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s profile and the country information and finds that it is mere speculation that the applicant will face persecution in Liberia because of his grandfather’s actual or perceived affiliation with Samuel Doe.

1. The Tribunal has had regard to the country information detailed above and accepts that there are members of the current Liberian government who were affiliated with Charles Taylor’s regime. The Tribunal finds, however, that there is no direct or indirect connection with these politicians and the applicant or his family. To be clear, the Tribunal finds that the applicant and the members of his family have no profile with the members of the current government in Liberia.

2. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the people in the current government or rebels who are associated with the former Charles Taylor regime will seek to cause him harm because of his grandfather’s association with Samuel Doe, his ethnicity or his family name.

3. As detailed above, while ethnic tension continues in some counties of Liberia[21] there is no information in the sources cited in this decision of Krahn people being killed in Liberia because of their ethnicity or political opinion, either officially or extra-judiciously.[22]  Reports confirm that the Krahn have resettled throughout the country following the end of the civil war, and present-day Krahn are typically found in Nimba, Grand Gedeh, and Sinoe counties[23].

   [21] ‘Mapping Opportunities for the Consolidation of Peace in Liberia: ‘Voices from the Countryside’’, ACCORD, 1 April 2017, 20190111145852, p.4 

   [22] 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Liberia', United States Department of State, 11 March 2020, 20200312131058, p.29

   [23] 'Socio-Economic Characteristics', PeacebuildingData.org, 07 October 2019, 20191008161334

4. Looking to the reasonably foreseeable future, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance the applicant will face persecution if he returns to Liberia because he belongs to the Krahn tribe or because of his family name and grandfather’s association with Samuel Doe.

   Retribution

5. The Tribunal finds the applicant provided a credible account of his relationship with the victim and his family in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that the victim’s immediate family do not wish to cause him any harm or seek retribution for the death of their son.

6. The Tribunal finds, however, the applicant’s evidence about the retribution he fears from the victim’s family in Liberia lacking in credibility.  First, the Tribunal does not find it consistent that the applicant would be forgiven by the victim’s immediate family in Australia but claim he fears harm from the victim’s family in Liberia with whom he has no contact. Secondly, the Tribunal notes that when questioned at the hearing the applicant initially claimed he did not know if the victim had any remaining family in Liberia and then he changed his evidence and said the victim does have family in Liberia. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s explanation as to why he changed his evidence and gives it little weight and considers it to be lacking in credibility. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s initial response that he did not know if the victim had family in Liberia was spontaneous and creditable. Thirdly, the Tribunal finds the applicant was not able to name any members of the victim’s family in Liberia and said he had no contact with them in Australia. Fourthly, as detailed in the delegate’s decision when the applicant took part in the protection interview, he provided general and vague evidence about the retribution he feared in Liberia and was only able to say he feared ‘people in the community’.

7. The Tribunal accepts the applicant may have received some threatening comments from members of his community on social media following media publicity of the accident in Australia; however, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant received threats from the victim’s family in Liberia.

8. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s evidence and finds that it is mere speculation that the victim has family in Liberia that seek to cause him harm because of the death the applicant caused in Australia in [Year]. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance the applicant will be persecuted by the victim’s family if he returns to Liberia in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal finds his fear of persecution from the victim’s family in Liberia is not well-founded.

   Ebola

9. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s claim that he fears returning to Liberia because the country may be subject to another Ebola epidemic in the future. As discussed with the applicant at the hearing, the World Health Organisation marked the end of the Ebola outbreak in December 2015.[24]  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is anxious about the possibility of a future Ebola outbreak if he returns to Liberia. The Tribunal finds that it is mere speculation that the country will be subjected to another Ebola epidemic in the reasonably foreseeable future. Further, as discussed with the applicant at the hearing, the Tribunal has considered the exception under s.36(2B)(c) and finds the real risk of the applicant contracting the virus is one that is faced by the population of Liberia generally, and not just the applicant personally.

   Returnee from a western country

   [24] >

   The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claim that he will face persecution if he returns to Liberia because he will be identified as a person who has come from a western country and has spent the majority of his life outside Liberia. The Tribunal has had regard to a report titled A Survey on Migration Policies in West Africa prepared by the International Centre for Migration Policy Development, Vienna in 2016. [25] In particular the Tribunal finds the following country information relevant in assessing the applicant’s claims:

   [25] A Survey on Migration Policies in West Africa , International Centre for Migration Policy Development, Vienna in 2016 refugee movements have been a central demographic feature of the past decades, there is also considerable voluntary migration towards Liberia. Moreover, immigration in Liberia can be expected to increase in the coming years, given the restoration of political stability in the country and the gradual recovery of the national economy.

   …

   Given the large Liberian refugee outflows that occurred during the past decades, it is likely that a significant proportion of the recorded immigrants are nationals that have returned to their country of nationality rather than being foreigners who have migrated to Liberia.

   …

   According to the 2008 Population and Housing Census, the majority of foreigners (61.5%) are males.

   …

   At the peak of the crisis, an estimated 700,000 refugees were recorded, mainly in neighbouring countries such as Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire, and Sierra Leone. Since the end of the conflict in 2003, most refugees have returned to Liberia.

   ….

   Within OECD Member States, the U.S. is the main country of residence of Liberian nationals. In 2007, this was estimated at 41,186 by the Sussex Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty. In addition, from 2001 to 2011, an average of 2000 Liberians per year acquired U.S. nationality. It must be noted, however, that this data does not distinguish between refugees and migrants.[26]

   [26] A Survey on Migration Policies in West Africa , International Centre for Migration Policy Development, Vienna in 2016 pp199-2010

10. The Tribunal also notes that the United Nations (UN) confirm that many thousands of Liberian refugees have returned home since the end of the civil war in 2003. For example, UNHCR reported that between 2004 and 2011, 169,300 Liberian refugees returned. Of these 138,600 were assisted by the UN refugee agency including over 1,200 in 2010. UNHCR report that in 2012, a month after UN refugee status for Liberians ended, more than 1,600 Liberians voluntarily returned to Monrovia, [City] (the applicant’s home area) and Harpr.[27]

    [27] >

    The Tribunal has had regard to the country information and the applicant’s profile as a male returnee from a western country who fled Liberia in 1991 as a child. As detailed above many of the refugees, like the applicant, had been away from Liberia for 20 years having escaped during the civil war. Many of the refugees are returning from a western country such as the United States. Most of the returnees are male. In this regard the applicant’s profile as a returnee is unremarkable. UNHCR reports that more than 12,500 refugees returned since January 2012 and the surge in the number of returnees comes as the UN refugee status for Liberians ended on 30 June 2012.[28]

    [28] >

    Reports predict a further increase in voluntary returnees since the restoration of political stability in the country and the gradual recovery of the national economy. The reports do not suggest that returning refugees are singled out and persecuted because they are returning from a western country after many years of absence. Reports confirm that Liberia is in the process of adopting a National Policy on Migration. The Tribunal notes that one of the goals of the Policy is to ‘promote an enabling and predictable immigration environment for investment, trade and contribution of the Liberian diaspora without compromising national security, national integrity and the environment.[29]

    [29] A Survey on Migration Policies in West Africa , International Centre for Migration Policy Development, Vienna in 2016 p202

11. The Tribunal has had regard to the country information and is not satisfied that there is real chance that the applicant will face persecution if he returns to Liberia in the reasonably foreseeable future because he is returnee from Australia (a western country) who fled Liberia as a refugee in 1991 when he was a child.

    Capacity to subsist

12. Country information confirms that Liberia’s 15 counties correspond to territories historically claimed by particular Liberian indigenous ethnic groups. English is the official language of Liberia, although more than 20 indigenous languages and a form of English known as Liberian English are also in daily use.[30] The Tribunal finds that the applicant would be able to communicate in the English language if he returned to Liberia.

    [30] Republic of Liberia Truth and Reconciliation Commission Final Report Vol.II  >

    The Tribunal has had regard to country information which reports that due to the devastation of two civil wars from 1989 to 2003, the Ebola virus outbreak in 2014, as well as recurring floods and other natural disasters, Liberia remains one of the most impoverished countries in the world.[31] The Tribunal notes, however, that these issues affect the whole of the population of Liberia generally, and not just the applicant personally.

    [31] ‘Liberia forecast: Real GDP Growth’, CEIC data, 2001-2021 forecast, 20190111140107; and ‘RANKED: The 28 poorest countries in the world — where people live on less than $1,000 per year’, Business Insider, 1 June 2018, 20190111140906; and ‘Liberia Debt Sustainability Analysis’, International Monetary Fund (IMF), 24 May 2018, 20190111141609 ⁸³ 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Liberia', United States Department of State, 11 March 2020,

13. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that he is unsure if he has any family remaining in Liberia. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has undertaken [Subject] schooling in Australia and he is motivated to start his own business. The Tribunal finds that his education will provide him with a foundation to find employment in Liberia.

14. The Tribunal has regard to the applicant’s evidence and also finds that his relatives and partner in Australia are willing to provide him with some assistance, subject to their means, so that he can established himself in Liberia.

15. As detailed above, the Tribunal notes Liberia is developing a National Policy on Migration which aims to promote an enabling and predictable immigration environment for investment, trade and contribution of the Liberian diaspora.[32]

    [32] A Survey on Migration Policies in West Africa , International Centre for Migration Policy Development, Vienna in 2016 p202

16. The Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant were to return to Liberia that there is a real chance that the applicant would face significant economic hardship or denial of access to basic services or denial of capacity to earn a livelihood, where such hardship or denial threatens his capacity to subsist.

    Cumulative factors

17. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims for protection on a cumulative basis and is not satisfied the combination of any of the following factors would result in a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm if he returns to Liberia:

    ·     he fears retribution for causing the death of a Liberian man in Australia;

    ·     he fears harm from members of the current government and rebels affiliated with Charles Taylor’s regime;

    ·     because of his Krahn ethnicity and his family name;

    ·     his grandfather’s association with Samuel Doe;

    ·     he is a returnee from a western country;

    ·     he fears a resurgence of the Ebola epidemic;

    ·     he left Liberia as a child and has no family connections or the ability to subsist;

    ·     general political and economic instability.

18. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).

    Complementary Protection

100.   Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa).

101.   In considering whether the applicant meets the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa), the Tribunal has considered whether it has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Liberia, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.  

102.   In MIAC v SZQRB, the Full Federal Court held that the ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition.[33] 

[33] MIAC v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33 (Lander, Besanko, Gordon, Flick and Jagot JJ, 20 March 2013) per Lander and Gordon JJ at [246], Besanko and Jagot JJ at [297], Flick J at [342].

103.   The types of harm that will amount to ‘significant harm’ are exhaustively defined by s.36(2A). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhumane treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment.

104.   The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk of significant harm to the applicant as a reasonable and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Liberia. 

105.   As detailed above the Tribunal finds the harm the applicant fears from the victim’s family in Liberia is speculative. As detailed above many of the refugees, like the applicant, had been away from Liberia for over 20 years having escape during the civil war. Many of the refugees are returning from a western country such as the United States. The Tribunal has had regard to the country information and is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant as returnee from a western country will face significant harm as a reasonable and foreseeable consequence of him being removed from Australia to Liberia. 

106.    Any harm he may experience due to the economic or security conditions in Liberia are faced by the population generally and not personally and is not significant harm by reason of s.36(2B)(c).  As a result, the Tribunal finds he is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

107.   The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

108.   There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy any of the criteria in s.36(2).

DECISION

109.   The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Christopher Smolicz
Member

ATTACHMENT

Country information

Country information demonstrates that the situation in Liberia is significantly different to what it was when the applicant left. The country has enjoyed more than a decade of peace and stability since the second civil war ended in 2003[34]. There have been encouraging signs of peace and stability in Liberia since then, including the return of refugees and internally displaced persons to their areas of origin.[35] The country has made considerable progress rebuilding government capacity, re-establishing the rule of law, and ensuring the political rights and civil liberties of citizens, and 2017 saw the first peaceful transfer of power between leaders since 1944.[36]

[34] 20200528164326: 'Freedom in the World 2020 - Liberia', Freedom House, 04 March 2020

[35] CIS2F827D92317: 'Annex of ‘Across Artificial Borders: An assessment of labour migration in the ECOWAS region’ - Liberia country report', ACP Observatory on Migration, 01 January 2014

[36] 20200528164326: 'Freedom in the World 2020 - Liberia', Freedom House, 04 March 2020 

Liberia is peopled by about 28 ethnic groups, each with its own language. Linguistically, the tribes may be divided into three main groups: the Mande people in the north and far west, the Kru tribes (including the Krahn) in the east and southeast, and the Mel in the northwest[37]. The largest groups are the Kpelle (20.3 per cent), Bassa (13.4 per cent, Grebo (10 per cent), Gio (8 per cent), Mano (7.9 per cent), Kru (6 per cent) Krahn (4 per cent equates to 139,085 people), Gola (4.4 per cent), Loma (5.1 per cent), Kissi (4.8 per cent), Vai (4 per cent), Mandingo (3.2 per cent), Gbandi (3 per cent), Mende (1.3 per cent) and Sapo (1.3 per cent)[38].

[37] 'Liberia - Ethnic groups', Encyclopedia of the Nations, 31 December 2018, 20191004120322  

[38] '[The World Factbook.] Liberia', [United States.] Central Intelligence Agency, 23 October 2018, CIS7B839419994; 'Analytical

Report on Population Size and Composition', Liberia Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Services, 31 August 2011, 20191008141702  

The law recognizes 16 indigenous ethnic groups; each speaks a distinct primary language and is concentrated regionally. Long-standing disputes regarding land and other resources among ethnic groups continued to contribute to social and political tensions[39].  However, the stability that followed the civil war has allowed the Krahn to resettle throughout the country. Present-day Krahn are typically found in Nimba, Grand Gedeh, and Sinoe counties[40].

[39] 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Liberia', United States Department of State, 11 March 2020, 20200312131058, p.29

[40] 'Socio-Economic Characteristics', PeacebuildingData.org, 07 October 2019, 20191008161334

In 1980 Master Sergeant Samuel Doe, a member of the indigenous Krahn ethnic group, seized power in a violent military coup[41].  Doe mismanaged the economy and transformed the armed forces into an ethnic Krahn militia which committed extensive human rights abuses against Liberia’s other ethnic groups[42].  In 1989 the National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL), led by Charles Taylor, began a revolt against the Doe regime[43] that led to a prolonged civil war in which Doe was killed by a rebel faction in the September[44].  

[41] 'Country of Origin Information Key Documents: Liberia', UK Home Office, 02 December 2007, 20191008143142; 'Krahn

[42] 'Country of Origin Information Key Documents: Liberia', UK Home Office, 02 December 2007, 20191008143142

[43] 'Country of Origin Information Key Documents: Liberia', UK Home Office, 02 December 2007, 20191008143142

[44] '[The World Factbook.] Liberia', [United States.] Central Intelligence Agency, 23 October 2018, CIS7B839419994; 'Country of

Origin Information Key Documents: Liberia', UK Home Office, 02 December 2007, 20191008143142

The Taylor government indiscriminately accused ethnic Mandingo, Krahn, and Gbandi citizens of Liberia of supporting the rebel incursion and members of these groups faced growing discrimination, arbitrary arrests, and violence at the hands of the government and its supporters, based solely on their ethnicity[45].  A period of relative peace in 1997 allowed for an election that brought Taylor to power, but major fighting resumed in 2000. By July 2003, Taylor had lost control of most of the country, including much of Monrovia. Peace talks in Accra in August led to the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in September[46]. The end of the war prompted the resignation of former president Charles Taylor, who was subsequently convicted by the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone for his involvement in Liberia’s civil war and sentenced to 50 years imprisonment[47]. 

[45] 'Human Rights Watch World Report 2003 - Liberia', Human Rights Watch (HRW), 14 January 2003, CX72249

[46] ‘Country of Origin Information Key Documents: Liberia', UK Home Office, 02 December 2007, 20191008143142

[47] 'Charles Taylor - President of Liberia', Britannica Online Encyclopedia, 07 October 2019, 20191008161913

After two years of rule by a transitional government, democratic elections in late 2005 brought
President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf to power[48]. In October, 73 legislative seats were contested for the House of Representatives in elections that domestic and international observers considered generally free and fair[49]. On December 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the first-round election results. On December 26, George Weah was elected president for a six-year term in a peaceful runoff election that was generally considered to be free and fair by international observers[50].

[48] ‘[The World Factbook.] Liberia', [United States.] Central Intelligence Agency, 23 October 2018, CIS7B839419994

[49] OGD95BE927401: ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2017 - Liberia’, US Department of State, 20 April 2018 ⁸¹ 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Liberia', United States Department of State, 11 March 2020, 20200312131058, p.1

[50] 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Liberia', United States Department of State, 11 March 2020, 20200312131058, p.1 

Due to the devastation of two civil wars from 1989 to 2003, the Ebola virus outbreak in 2014, as well as recurring floods and other natural disasters, Liberia remains one of the most impoverished countries in the world[51].

[51] ‘Liberia forecast: Real GDP Growth’, CEIC data, 2001-2021 forecast, 20190111140107; and ‘RANKED: The 28 poorest countries in the world — where people live on less than $1,000 per year’, Business Insider, 1 June 2018, 20190111140906; and ‘Liberia Debt Sustainability Analysis’, International Monetary Fund (IMF), 24 May 2018, 20190111141609 ⁸³ 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Liberia', United States Department of State, 11 March 2020,

However, the US Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2019 for Liberia, published in March 2020, states that there are currently no reports of political prisoners or detainees in Liberia[52].  While there are some reports of law enforcement officers harassing newspaper and radio station owners because of their political opinions, especially those that criticise government officials, these reports relate to publicly published articles and broadcasted radio shows with the most significant consequence of these actions being questioning[53].  The Constitution of Liberia also provides citizens with the ability to choose their government in free and fair periodic elections held by secret ballot and based on universal and equal suffrage[54]. The most recent elections in Liberia were the first electoral transfer of state executive power since 1944 demonstrating a period of relative peace in the political landscape of Liberia[55].

[52] 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Liberia', United States Department of State, 11 March 2020, 20200312131058, p.11 

[53] 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Liberia', United States Department of State, 11 March 2020,

[54] 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Liberia', United States Department of State, 11 March 2020, 20200312131058, p.17 

[55] CIS7B839418955: ‘Liberia: Political Transition and U.S. Relations’, Congressional Research Service, 15 May 2018, p.1. ⁸⁷ ‘Mapping Opportunities for the Consolidation of Peace in Liberia: ‘Voices from the Countryside’’, ACCORD, 1 April 2017,

While ethnic rivalries continue[56], as well as ‘ongoing complex power dynamics between ex-combatants[57], unresolved and prolonged displacements due to land and housing and property issues’[58], there is no information in the sources cited in the delegate’s decision of Krahn people being killed in Liberia because of their ethnicity or political opinion, either officially or extra-judiciously.  The Centre of Governance and Human Rights November 2019 report ‘Unlawful Killings in Africa’ referred to Liberian police employing excessive force against student and political demonstrators in 2011 and 2012[59]. It also listed the political assassination of a Charles Taylor opponent by supporters of the latter in 2002[60] and two election-related killings by the police in 2011[61]. The Report added that there are cases of ritual and occult-related killings[62].  Notably, there was no mention in the report of ethnically motivated killings in Liberia. 

[56] ‘Mapping Opportunities for the Consolidation of Peace in Liberia: ‘Voices from the Countryside’’, ACCORD, 1 April 2017, 20190111145852, p.4 

[57] 'Liberia: Former Notorious Rebel, Gang Leader Becomes Productive Citizen', All Africa, 05 September 2017, 20190111143330

[58] Liberia: Links between peacebuilding, conflict prevention and durable solutions to displacement’, Brookings Institution project on internal displacement, 5 September 2014, pp. 16-20, 20190111144638

[59] ‘Unlawful Killings in Africa ', University of Cambridge, 20 November 2019, 20191120144305, p.47

[60] 'Unlawful Killings in Africa ', University of Cambridge, 20 November 2019, 20191120144305, p.103

[61] ‘Unlawful Killings in Africa ', University of Cambridge, 20 November 2019, 20191120144305, p.128

[62] ‘Unlawful Killings in Africa ', University of Cambridge, 20 November 2019, 20191120144305, p.169

Regarding the more recent human rights situation in Liberia, the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) stated on 16 June 2017, in its thirty third progress report of the Secretary General on the United Nations Mission in Liberia, that it ‘continued to be characterized by the high incidence of sexual and gender-based violence; harmful traditional practices, such as female genital mutilation, forcible initiation into secret societies, trial by ordeal and accusation of witchcraft; curtailment of the freedom of speech; and limited national capacity and resources to promote and protect human rights or to meet treaty obligations’[63].  The Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (OHCR) states that despite significant progress made in the last 14 years, Liberia faces serious human rights challenges, many of which stem from historical social divides, discrimination and impunity[64].

[63] ‘Thirty third progress report of the Secretary General on the United Nations Mission in Liberia’, UNMIL, 16 June 2017, p. 7,

[64] 'OHCHR in Liberia (2018-2024)', OHCHR, no date, refers to 2018 to 2024, accessed 3 August 2020, 20200803182051 

A June 2017 report by the UNMIL said that the security situation in the country remained ‘generally stable’, but there were ‘sporadic incidents such as armed robberies, burglaries, presumed ritual killings, land disputes, mob violence and demonstrations’[65].  Since the Civil War ended in 2003 ‘high intensity violence has been replaced with low intensity gang and other criminal related violence which is rooted in the country’s high levels of poverty and unemployment’[66]. However, the gang-related violence appears not to be politically motivated, nor does it appear to pose any threat to sustainable peace in the post-war years[67].

[65] ‘Thirty third progress report of the Secretary General on the United Nations Mission in Liberia’, UNMIL, 16 June 2017, p. 5,

[66] ‘Gangs and Smuggling in Liberia’, Matt Herbert, 1 February 2009, 20190111155827 

[67] ‘Gangs and Smuggling in Liberia’, Matt Herbert, 1 February 2009, 20190111155827

Living conditions in Monrovia particularly are seriously affected by both opportunistic and gang-related crime activity in addition to issues with official police corruption and abuses of power that are considered to be widespread throughout the country[68].  Due to a lack of resources, the police are very limited in its ability to respond to criminal acts or provide full services to crime victims. It is not uncommon for officers to request bribes at major intersections or police checkpoints during hours of darkness[69].  The 2015 compilation report produced by the Human Rights Council’s working group, prepared for OHCHR’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR) on Liberia, also highlights serious concerns regarding crime, corruption and malpractice in the police force[70].

[68] ‘Liberia 2018 Crime & Safety Report’, US Department of State OSAC, 19 June 2018, 20190111154927; ‘Vigilantes take on Liberian gangs’, BBC News, 19 September 2006, 20190115140905; ‘Liberia: Criminal Gang Vandalizes Church in Paynesville’,

All Africa, 24 June 2016, 20190115141519

[69] Liberia 2018 Crime & Safety Report’, US Department of State OSAC, 19 June 2018, 20190111154927

[70] 'Liberia: CI181214151116847 – Situation for returnees – Security in Monrovia - Kpelle ethnic group', Country of Origin

Nevertheless, the 2018 Global Peace Index found that peace and stability in Liberia appear to be improving: Liberia had the second largest overall improvement in peace of any country, moving up 27 places in the rankings[71].

[71] ‘2018 Global Peace Index’, Institute for economics and peace, June 2018, P.22, 20190214163912

President Johnson Sirleaf’s administration had strengthened civil rights in Liberia although progress was limited. The judicial system is dysfunctional, and it is often futile to seek redress against actions of the state or its officials. Police routinely extort motorists on roads and may make arbitrary arrests or with insufficient evidence[72].

[72] 'BTI 2020 Country Report Liberia', Bertelsmann Stiftung, 29 April 2020, 20200430171309, p.11

Bertelsmann Stiftung wrote in March 2020 of the belief that Liberia is more democratic now than three years ago, which likely reflects the eventual election victory of George Weah. At the same time, dissatisfaction with the way democracy is working in the country is increasing. Complaints include impunity for elite corruption, lack of concern among elites for ordinary Liberians, and a lack of order[73]. Trust is in short supply in Liberia. Historically the region was characterized by the small size of political entities and insecurity. 

[73] 'BTI 2020 Country Report Liberia', Bertelsmann Stiftung, 29 April 2020, 20200430171309, 13

Impunity remained a serious problem for individuals who committed atrocities during the civil wars, as well as for those responsible for current and continuing crimes, despite intermittent and limited government attempts to investigate and prosecute officials accused of current abuses, whether in the security forces or elsewhere in the government. Corruption at all levels of government continued to undermine public trust in state institutions[74].

[74] 'Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2019 - Liberia', United States Department of State, 11 March 2020, 20200312131058, p.1

Some perpetrators of wartime atrocities have faced justice abroad, including in the United States. For instance, in 2009, Charles Taylor’s son, Roy M. Belfast Jr. was sentenced to 97 years in prison[75].

[75] 'Liberia: Background and U.S. Relations', Congressional Research Service, 14 February 2020, 20200529134401, p.13

However Charles Taylor’s ex-wife and several former associates remain active in Liberian politics, as do figures formerly associated with various armed factions[76].  Jewel Howard Taylor is the current Vice President[77] and Prince Yormie Johnson, who was responsible for the execution of former President Doe, is a Senator (although ‘Johnson tops the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report’s ‘Most Notorious Perpetrators list’ and is widely expected to be the first person to face a war crimes court for his role in Charles Taylor’s National Patriotic Front of Liberia and later, as the head of his breakaway the Independent National Patriotic Front of Liberia’)[78]. Moreover, accountability for wartime abuses remains a highly sensitive issue, and several individuals who played key roles in Liberia’s conflicts retain influence and/or serve in elected office[79]. 

[76] 'Liberia: Background and U.S. Relations', Congressional Research Service, 14 February 2020, 20200529134401, p.6

[77] 'BTI 2020 Country Report Liberia', Bertelsmann Stiftung, 29 April 2020, 20200430171309, p. 3

[78] 'Liberia: Defying Prince Johnson, Nimbaians Call for a War Crimes Court', Front Page Africa, 09 January 2020, 20200313171808

[79] 'Liberia: Background and U.S. Relations', Congressional Research Service, 14 February 2020, 20200529134401, p.4

According to a 2016 publication by the International Labour Organization (ILO), in Liberia, 68 percent of employment is in the informal economy.  A significant percentage of Liberia’s workforce rely on additional means of income such as ‘secondary activities’[80].There is no welfare system to support persons whom are unemployed,18.8 percent of males are unemployed and 47.9 percent of Liberians live in extreme poverty[81]. At the national level, skilled agricultural workers constitute the largest group; there are over 400,000 of them. There are also a quarter of a million service and sales workers, and nearly 200,000 people working in elementary occupations. The latter are jobs such as cleaners and helpers, agricultural or other labourers, street vendors, and various other basic jobs.
Most of the occupational groups are more likely to be found in urban rather than rural areas, except for skilled agricultural workers and elementary occupations which occur more often in rural areas[82] (this information pre-dates the 2014 Ebola Crisis which significantly impacted the country’s economy however some of the information from the ILO survey remains relevant[83]).

[80] ‘Report on the Liberia Labour Force Survey 2010’, International Labour Organization (ILO), February 2011, p. 46,

[81] ‘Youth and the Labour Market in Liberia - on history, state structures and spheres of informalities’, Uppsala University, 12

[82] ‘Report on the Liberia Labour Force Survey 2010’, International Labour Organization (ILO), February 2011, 32,

[83] 'Liberia: CI181214151116847 – Situation for returnees – Security in Monrovia - Kpelle ethnic group', Country of Origin Information Services Section (COISS), 22 February 2019, 20190222143407

Extract from Migration Act 1958

5 (1) Interpretation

…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

(a)    severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

(b)   pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

but does not include an act or omission:

(c)    that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

(d)   arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

…

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

(a)    that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

(b)   that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

…

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

(a)    for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

(b)   for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

(c)    for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

(d)   for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

(e)    for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

…

receiving country,  in relation to a non-citizen, means:

(a)    a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

(b)   if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

…

5H   Meaning of refugee

(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:

(a)    in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or

(b)   in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.

Note:  For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.

…

5J    Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

(a)    the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

(b)   there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

(c)    the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

Note:  For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

Note:  For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

(a)    conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

(b)   conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

(c)    without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;

(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

(a)    that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

(b)   the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

(c)    the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

(a)    a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

(b)   significant physical harassment of the person;

(c)    significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

(d)   significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

(e)    denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

(f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K   Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

(a)    disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

(b)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

(i)the first person has ever experienced; or

(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

Note:  Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L   Membership of a particular social group other than family

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

(a)    a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

(b)   the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

(c)    any of the following apply:

(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d)   the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures

(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

(a)    protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

(i)the relevant State; or

(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b)   the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

(a)    the person can access the protection; and

(b)   the protection is durable; and

(c)    in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

…

36    Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

…

(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

(a)    a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or

(aa)  a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

(b)   a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c)    a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

(a)    the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

(b)   the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

(c)    the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

(d)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

(e)    the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

(a)    it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

(b)   the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

(c)    the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

…

People of Liberia and Ivory Coast', Africani Sankofa, 06 April 2017, CISEDB50AD7621

Information Services Section (COISS), 22 February 2019, 20190222143407, p.9

February 2014, 20190212194035