2115855 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by applicants seeking protection visas. The applicants claimed they feared persecution and harm upon return to Kenya due to the first applicant's past role as a police officer and her alleged involvement with an opposition political party. The court was required to determine whether there was a real chance the applicants would be persecuted for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1)(a) of the Act, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to Kenya, they faced a real risk of suffering significant harm under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The court found that the first applicant was not a witness of truth, noting that her evidence was vague and lacked credibility. Specifically, the court highlighted her inability to name individuals she claimed to have provided sensitive information about to the opposition party. The court applied the principles relating to the assessment of a well-founded fear of persecution and the complementary protection criterion, considering relevant guidelines and country information. Ultimately, the court was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicants.

Consequently, the applicants failed to satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa, and therefore could not be granted the visa. The decision under review was affirmed.