2015540 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Nigerian national. The applicant claimed to fear harm from Nigerian authorities due to his ethnicity and his past, albeit low-level, involvement with a secessionist political movement, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, considering both the refugee convention and complementary protection provisions.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically political opinion and ethnicity, and whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, upon removal from Australia, he would face a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's credibility, particularly in light of inconsistencies in his account and his prior immigration history, including the cancellation of his student visa.

The Tribunal considered evidence from the applicant, submissions from his representative, and independent country information regarding Nigeria. It noted that while the applicant identified as Igbo and Christian, and had some past association with IPOB, his involvement was described as low-level and primarily during his youth. The Tribunal also took into account adverse information, including the applicant's gambling addiction, financial dishonesty, and a request for voluntary repatriation, which raised questions about his genuine fear of harm. The Tribunal ultimately found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Tribunal remitted the decision for redetermination, finding that there was a real chance of significant harm to the applicant upon return to Nigeria, particularly given the detention and mistreatment of his cousin by the army. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not have a right to reside in a third country and that the matter should be reconsidered in light of the complementary protection provisions.