2204952 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1065

2204952 (Refugee) [2025] ARTA 1065 (24 March 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2204952
Tribunal:Senior Member G. Cullen
Date:24 March 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 24 March 2025 at 3:53pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – Protection Visa – Ghana – a member of the armed forces – fears harm at the hands of the gangsters – inconsistent evidence – delay in applying for protection in Australia – not satisfied the applicants have a well-founded fear – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
Statement of Reasons

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

The applicant, a national of Ghana, arrived in Australia on a [temporary] visa on [date] March 2018, valid to 15 May 2018.
On 6 June 2020 he applied for the protection visa.
A delegate of the Minister on 25 March 2022 refused to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) on 4 April 2022.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT.
This decision and statement of reasons is a review of the delegate’s decision by the Tribunal.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Evidence before the Department
Protection visa application
According to his protection visa application, the applicant is a married male born in [year] in Accra, Ghana. He is a Christian. He was a soldier in the Ghanaian armed forces before his departure. From July 2007 to 20 March 2018, he lived at [Camp 1], in Accra, Ghana. He completed high school in Ghana. His wife and parents live in Accra, Ghana. He has no family in Australia. He speaks, reads and writes Akan and English. He previously travelled outside of Ghana to [two countries].
In response to questions in relation to his reasons for claiming protection in his protection visa application form, the applicant provided the following information.
He left Ghana because he was in danger and capitalised on a chance to save his life by being assigned to [attend] [Event 1] held in [City 1].
He was targeted in Ghana due to his work as a soldier in the Ghanaian armed forces as, in the course of his numerous operations, he came into contact with gangsters who operated not only in Accra but throughout Ghana. The gangsters have his picture and have threatened to take their revenge on him. He was once chased by the armed robbers on [a] motorway and they intended to kill him, but he eluded them.
He answered no to the question as to whether he sought help within the country after the harm. He stated that seeking help will not atone for the revenge they have vowed to perpetrate against him. He referred to a close friend of his, [Mr A], who was killed in 2017 [after] having been targeted for many years.
He answered no to the question as to whether he moved to another part of the country to seek safety as relocating or moving to another part of the country would not save his life. He has been a targeted due to his involvement in special operations which he undertook as part of his job in the security agencies. The operations were Vanguard operations which were jointly operated between the police and army and these operations are mounted throughout the whole country.
As to what will happen to him on return, as his picture is in the public, his life would be in jeopardy. He will face significant harm. He had people tipping him off that his life was in danger on several occasions and he was shaken and frightened.
He claimed that authorities might try their best to protect him and in the face of killings, they might arrest the perpetrators, but only after the event. There is nothing that will save his life. He claimed that if he thought the authorities could save his life, he would not have left Ghana.
He referred to the emotional toll of leaving his employment, friends and relatives. He did not want to leave as he loved his job in the armed forces. He would not be re-employed again, which will put him in a risky situation.
Supporting documents
He provided numerous photos of himself in army fatigues at [a location]. He also provided his Ghana Armed Forces identity cards.
Pre-interview submission
Prior to the interview, he provided a Notice of Incorrect Answers noting he is married, has a daughter born in 2007 and overstayed his visa when he came to Australia.
The interview
The applicant attended an interview with a delegate of the Minister on 8 November 2021. He was assisted by an interpreter in the Akan (Ghana) and English languages.
He reiterated his claim to fear return as he was the leader of a joint police and army patrol where money and drugs were seized by them from gangsters in Accra.
The Tribunal has listened to a recording of that interview and where relevant the evidence from that interview appears in this decision.
Post-interview submission and documents
In a statutory declaration received after the interview, he noted that the delegate at the interview had asked him whether he had any of these issues for one year and three months before coming to Australia and he replied yes. He added that he received threats initially but these threats started getting bigger in the middle of 2017. He became scared for his life after the death of [Mr A] on [date] 2017 as he had served with him and was scared by the way he was killed. The threats became worse in 2018 and he had no choice but to leave Ghana. He claimed that there is an increase in threats against soldiers and he no longer felt safe.
He noted the delegate asked him why he came to Australia four months after the visa was granted and while that was true, he was in hiding and could only move out of Ghana when the [Event 1] started in March 2018. He was waiting to receive money to buy a ticket to travel to Australia. He would have left Ghana earlier, but he did not have enough money as he was living in hiding.
He submitted a news article dated [date] 2016 headed “[deleted]”, which referred to being on [website]. This article refers to the applicant’s life being in danger as he led a military and police operation on [date] 2016 to foil thugs.
He also provided general country information regarding Vanguard operations in Ghana, difficulties faced by soldiers in Ghana and about the plight of [Mr A] . He was not named in these articles.
Summary of the delegate’s decision
The delegate accepted the applicant was a member of the armed forces but found the applicant had fabricated his claim for protection and was not targeted by a gang for the reasons he claims. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm in Ghana. He was not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee, as defined by s 5H(1) of the Act. He was also not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Ghana, there was a real risk he would suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Evidence before the Tribunal
Pre-hearing submission
The applicant did not submit a pre-hearing submission or additional documents relevant to his claim to meet the protection criteria.
The hearing
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 12 February 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Akan (Ghana) and English languages. The applicant elected to speak in English. He was advised that whenever he did not understand something or felt he could better communicate in Akan, he could use the interpreter, which he did on occasions.
The applicant’s representative did not attend the hearing.
The applicant reiterated his claim to fear return because of potential harm at the hands of the gangsters, land guards or thugs due to his involvement in a Vanguard operation with police, where he was the leader on [date] 2016 during which he secured their drugs and money. He claims that, as his picture was publicly displayed, he became known to the gangsters, who threatened him with harm. He also referred to an incident where he was chased on [a] highway. He claimed that as a result he fears harm from these gangsters and that he will be unable to earn a living, particularly as he will be unable to return to the armed forces. He referred to the threats increasing from mid-2017 and that from the outset he had advised his military superiors. He said from mid-2017 he was effectively in hiding in [Camp 1] as he was told not to leave by his military superiors.
He was asked on a number of occasions if there were any other reasons why he feared return and he answered in the negative.
The Tribunal asked numerous questions as to his claims and his supporting documentation. It raised a number of concerns as to the credibility of his evidence as to his claims as well as the supporting documentation. It raised with him as of concern his delay in departure, and delay in applying for a protection visa.
Where relevant, the applicant’s oral evidence and his responses to the concerns raised at the hearing are considered below.
Post-hearing submissions
No post-hearing submissions were provided.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The relevant criteria for a protection visa are outlined in the attachment to this decision.
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken into account the following, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration:
· Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), Country Thematic Report ECOWAS, 3 December 2020.
· Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and Humanitarian – Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and Humanitarian – Refugee Law Guidelines.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. This involves considering whether the applicant:
· has a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to Ghana and meets the refugee protection provisions of the Act.
· meets the protection obligations under the complementary protection provisions of the Act.
For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Assessment of the applicant’s claims
Having sighted a copy of the applicant’s identity documents, and on the basis of his evidence at hearing, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a national of Ghana for the purposes of s 36(2)(a) of the Act. For the purposes of s 36(2)(aa) the Tribunal accepts that Ghana is the receiving country.
As to the applicant’s credibility, while the Tribunal has, as detailed below, significant concerns regarding central aspects of the applicant’s claims and evidence, there are other aspects of his claimed circumstances which have remained consistent over time and which the Tribunal is satisfied are true. Specifically, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was a [position] in the armed forces in Ghana working in [a] Department. It accepts he was also employed part time as a [Occupation 1] and came to Australia [for] [Event 1].
The applicant has repeatedly claimed that he was involved in a Vanguard operation, being a joint police and armed forces operation, as the leader on the night of [date] 2016, when he secured the money and drugs of gangsters.[1] He claims that as the gangsters had his picture, as it was published by the media, he was subsequently threatened repeatedly with harm by the gangsters via his phone and once was chased on the [a] Highway. The threats increased in mid-2017, and from that time he was effectively in hiding at [Camp 1] and he left Ghana due to the threats, in fear and to save his life.
[1] He has also referred to them as land guards, land armies, thugs and misbehaving people.
However, for the reasons that follow, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s evidence is credible as to these claims. It follows the Tribunal does not accept the applicant fears return for the reasons he claims, namely, because of what happened to him in Ghana at the hands of the gangsters. It follows it does not accept he faced any of the difficulties he claims at the hands of the gangsters or anyone else for the reasons he claims. It finds his testimony to be inconsistent as to these claims and is of the view that he has fabricated claims and concocted evidence to achieve an immigration outcome.
Incident on [date] 2016
The applicant has repeatedly claimed that on the night of [date] 2016 he was involved in a Vanguard operation, being a joint military and police operation against the gangsters to secure illegal drugs. However, for the reasons that follow, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant is a credible witness as to this claim.
Firstly, the applicant has repeatedly claimed that the operation on [date] 2016 was a Vanguard Security Operation, being a joint operation between police and the armed forces in the city of Accra. At hearing, he said it was a Vanguard operation to prevent illegal drug trafficking. He also referred to it as a Vanguard operation in his claims outlined in his protection visa application. However, as raised with the applicant at hearing, independent information as well as information he submitted in articles indicates the Vanguard operation in Ghana was not launched until mid-2017 and while it was a joint military-police operation, its aim was to end “galamsey”, a Ghanaian term derived from the phrase ‘gather them and sell’ which refers to illegal small-scale mining,[2] not to combat illegal drug suppliers or traffickers.
[2] Albrecht, Aubyn and Edu-Afful “Halt and Vanguard; Two Military Operations in Ghana and their consequences” Danish Institute for International Studies” published 10 November 2021 Halt and Vanguard | DIIS Accessed 12 February 2025. Information from the Ghana National Armed Forces Facebook post notes it was launched on 30 July 2017 to end illegal mining activities otherwise known as “galamsey” (13) Operation VANGUARD is a Ghanaian... - Ghana National Armed Forces | Facebook and >
The following information describes the Vanguard operation:
A ‘joint taskforce’ was formed of 200 military and 200 police personnel in order to stop galamsey and in doing so prevent the degradation of forests and pollution of waterbodies. In practice this was meant to involve the seizure and burning of equipment belonging to illegal mining operators and the forced closure of mines without official paperwork.[3]
[3] Halt and Vanguard | DIIS >
At hearing the Tribunal raised with him how the operation he was involved in could be a Vanguard operation based on the information above, as Vanguard operations did not commence until 2017, were not in Accra and did not involve preventing the distribution of illegal drugs. It questioned the credibility of his evidence as to his involvement in this operation. He responded that Vanguard is a military operation term which started in 2016, and with the change of government in 2017 was relaunched in 2017 to combat illegal mining. However, despite a search on available databases and search engines, there was no information of a military operation called Vanguard operating in 2016 to combat the distribution of illegal drugs. The Tribunal therefore does not accept his explanation for the inconsistency. This adds to the finding he was never involved in a Vanguard operation or an operation with police on [date] 2016 as a leader to combat illegal trafficking. It adds to the finding his evidence is not credible as to his claims.
Further, the applicant has provided inconsistent evidence as to what occurred on the night of [date] 2016. While he has been consistent that the gangsters left their money and drugs when they ran away, his evidence was inconsistent between the Department interview and Tribunal hearing about a gun fight preceding them running away. At the Department interview, when describing what happened, he said that he attended an incident where people had gathered and were misbehaving. He said when they arrived, the misbehaving people, who he identified as the gangsters, ran away and left behind the money and drugs. He did not refer to a gun fight. However, in the article submitted after the Department interview describing the incident, titled “[title]” which is considered below, it indicated that live fire was exchanged in the incident. At hearing the applicant also indicated when he first arrived at the scene, the gangsters tried to hold them back, there were gun shots, they overpowered them and the gangsters ran away, leaving the money and drugs. When asked why he did not refer to an exchange of gunshots when they arrived at the scene at the Department interview when describing the event and what happened that evening, he said he was not asked the details. However, the Tribunal does not accept this response and is of the view if there was a gun fight before the gangsters ran away, he would have volunteered this information when describing what happened on [date] 2016 due to its significance, which he did not. The Tribunal also notes that at the interview the delegate raised with him the following:
Q: You said initially you came to the attention of the gangs as you were on patrol and when you approached them they dropped their drugs and ran away?
A: It was not a small amount of money and when they saw them (interpreter used them instead of us) they dropped everything and ran away.
The Tribunal is of the view that, given its significance, if there was a gun fight or exchange of fire the applicant would have provided that evidence when describing the event at the Department interview. This inconsistency as to what happened on [date] 2016 adds to the finding he was not involved in such an operation on [date] 2016. It adds to the finding he has not provided credible evidence as to his claims.
The gangsters
When asked at hearing about the gangsters, the applicant said they are violent drug dealers. He said the police and military tried to apprehend them and tried to arrest them. The Tribunal asked whether he now knew their name or connection; he said he did not know. He said that whatever happened to him, including the threats, he advised the military and not the police. He said whatever happened to him, the military may have told the police. He said there was an investigation by the military in the five months before he left. He said the military was trying to arrest these people.
When asked if he knew whether they had been arrested, he said he would have heard but he has not heard anything. The Tribunal, questioning the credibility of his claim, raised with him of concern why, if he had faced the threats he claims, fled in fear of his life and fears return from the gangsters, he had not been proactive and contacted the military, who were in contact with the police, to see whether they had apprehended or found these gangsters. He said he has not been in communication with the military since he came to Australia and he would have heard. The Tribunal raised with him that his lack of interest as to whether the authorities had arrested the gangsters undermines his claim that he left in fear due to their threats and fears return due to harm at the hands of the gangsters for the reasons he claims. He said when he was able to leave and come to Australia, he felt safe and felt there was no need to go back to ask the military about the past. His family are in a safe location and they had not faced threats. He has decided to move forward in his new life.

The Tribunal is of the view that if he faced the threats he claims, left in fear and fears harm at the hands of the gangsters, he would have sought information from the military as to what had happened to the gangsters, whether they had been arrested or if they had any information about them in the seven years since he departed. His behaviour of not contacting the military, instead waiting to be told, undermines his claim that he fled in fear for the reasons he claims and fears return for the reasons he claims. It adds to the finding he has not provided credible evidence as to his claims.
Identification of the applicant by the gangsters
The applicant has repeatedly and consistently claimed that he was threatened by gangsters after the [date] 2016 operation as they identified him due to media involvement.
However, he has provided the following inconsistent evidence as to this media involvement:
·At the Department interview he initially said he was told the gangsters have his picture. As to how the gangsters had the picture of him, he said a picture of him was televised when he was declaring the drugs and money to his superiors. He confirmed his picture was taken and placed on the TV news and he was seen on the TV news by the gangsters. He said the media came on [date] 2016 and his picture was included in the news reports. When asked if he had records of his picture on news reports, he said that the incident occurred at night and it was televised but he had not checked online for any news reports until about two to three days before the Department interview but he could not find the reports. When a concern was raised as to why he did not have evidence of the picture of him in the news, he said that the TV is a big platform, it is hard to find matters on it and he will ask someone in Ghana to find it.
·After the interview he produced the news article dated [date] 2016 titled “ [title]” about the incident as outlined and considered below. This article revealed his identity. He did not at the Department interview refer to being interviewed by a print news journalist two days after the incident, on [date] December 2016.
·Initially at hearing he said some print journalists came to the scene of the incident on [date] 2016, including [an outlet]. He said the journalists were from online newspapers. He said after the incident they came to [Camp 1] and he told them he would not speak with them. He said two days later a senior journalist [came] to the barracks where he lived and he told the journalist the whole story. He confirmed that was the journalist who he told everything to. He said there was then an article about the incident dated [date] 2016, as outlined and considered below, naming him [but] he did not see it. He said he was asked by the delegate whether he had anything in support of his claims, so after the Department interview he sought to find it with the help of his colleagues and for the first time saw this article.
Later in the hearing he said it came on the news, but he did not know whether it was in the news or print. He said he knew around 2016 about the news article [but] only saw the actual article after he looked for it after the Department interview. He said his picture was taken at the scene and not after at the barracks. He said no pictures were taken in the later interview. He said he looked for the picture after the Department interview and not before.
The Tribunal raised with him the following inconsistencies in his evidence:
·At the Department interview he referred to his picture being seen by gangsters on TV news as they attended on the day of the operation on [date] 2016, whereas at the Tribunal hearing he referred to his picture being in the newsprint media who were there on that day. The Tribunal raised with him that at hearing he had confirmed there were only print media there on the day of the operation. He responded that the media team was there on the day of the operation. He did not respond further. The Tribunal is of the view he would be consistent as to who attended – the TV news or in print news or both – given its significance, particularly as it is his claim that this is how the gangsters identified him.
While later in the hearing he said it came on the news and he knew his picture was in a news article, he only stated this after concerns were raised as to why he had not referred to the TV news attending the incident and this being the source of the picture of him being revealed to the gangsters.
·He did not refer to being interviewed by a print journalist two days after the day of the operation, on [date] 2016, at the Department interview or in his application for the visa, but two days after the Department interview he produced an article indicating this, also referring to it at the Tribunal hearing. When this was raised with him at hearing, he did not explain the inconsistency. The Tribunal is of the view that if he was interviewed two days after the incident where he was named, he would have advised the Department at interview, particularly as the delegate discussed with him and asked numerous questions about the media interest in the operation. It does not accept his lack of interest in the article for the reasons outlined below.
·At the Department interview, he said two to three days before that interview he looked for the supporting articles and at the Tribunal hearing he said he only looked after the Department interview. When the inconsistency was raised, he said he looked before and after the Department interview but only found it after. The Tribunal raised with him that his changing evidence is of concern. This inconsistency adds to the finding his evidence is not credible as to these claims.
The Tribunal is of the view that the above inconsistent evidence is significant and is of the view that if the source of the difficulties which led to the gangsters threatening him was his picture and identity being shown by the media, he would be consistent throughout the process as to which media attended the operation, who displayed the picture, his interaction with journalists and when he began looking for evidence of the picture. This adds to the finding that he has not provided credible evidence as to these claims.
The Tribunal is also of the view the applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation as to why, despite him claiming to be a [Occupation 1], claiming to have been interviewed by a journalist and claiming to have been repeatedly threatened as the gangsters had his picture from the media, he had never sought nor seen the news article with his picture in it until after the Department interview when he went searching for it, being nearly 5 years after the operation. This is particularly so as he was working as a [Occupation 1] from the time it happened in 2016 until he departed for Australia in March 2018. When raised with him at the hearing, he said he never knew it had been published. The Tribunal does not accept this explains its concerns. This adds to its finding he has not provided credible evidence as to these claims.
Military and police assistance
At hearing the applicant said from the beginning he informed his military supervisors of the threats and continued to do so. He said it was the military superiors in mid-2017 who took it seriously after he told them he was chased on the highway. He said they advised him to keep a low profile and be in hiding in his home by, for example, not going to social events or funerals, to stop patrols and stay in the camp. He said the military told the police.
However, in his application for the visa he said he did not seek help and referred to the situation of [Mr A] .
Given his evidence that he sought the assistance from the military and received ongoing assistance from them, including their advice from mid-2017 as to his behaviour, the Tribunal views his evidence in his application that he did not seek help adds to the finding the applicant is not credible in his evidence about his claims.
Incident on [a] Highway
The applicant claimed at hearing that as a result of the gangsters having his picture and knowing his identity, he was repeatedly threatened with harm. However, he provided inconsistent evidence as to being chased by them in mid-2017 on [a Highway]. While he also referred to this in his application for the visa, he did not refer to facing this significant difficulty at the Department interview, despite being asked what experiences he had in Ghana which makes him think he would be targeted and killed on return and the reasons he believes he cannot return to Ghana. When raised with him, he did not explain the reason for the inconsistency. The Tribunal is of the view if he was chased by a car on the highway which the military and himself viewed as increasing the risk on him and it was the reason he changed his behaviour by not going to social events, no longer going on patrol, keeping a low profile and effectively going into hiding in his own home, he would have raised it at the Department interview when the above questions were asked. This adds to the finding the applicant’s evidence is not credible as to these claims.
Delay in applying for a Protection Visa
The applicant arrived in Australia on a [temporary] visa on [date] March 2018, valid to 15 May 2018, and applied for the protection visa on 6 June 2020.[4] He claims he fled due to threats and as he was in fear of his life. The Tribunal is of the view if he was genuine in his claim and he fled in fear due to the threats he faced, he would have applied sooner than two years and three months after he arrived and over two years after he had been in Australia without a visa. When the concern was raised at hearing, he said he feared being deported as the news said that Africans were being deported. He said he thought if he applied for a protection visa, he would be deported and he had to wait. He said he later spoke to the Ghanaian community after the news of the deportations had reduced and took steps to apply for a protection visa. At the Department interview, he also said he was going to a nearby country but then the COVID-19 pandemic happened and that stopped him, and referred to wishing to travel to [Country 1]. He said he had plans for securing a Student visa to travel to [Country 1]. It was raised with him that his stay in Australia without a visa may have had a negative impact on the potential visa application in [Country 1] and he said he had not thought about this. The Tribunal does not accept his explanation and is of the view if he fled in fear of harm seeking a safe place, while he may have had some concern in approaching the authorities, he would have applied for a protection visa as soon as he could and/or sought migration advice. The Tribunal does not accept his explanation that he did not apply as he was thinking of travelling to [Country 1], when he was unlawful in Australia, and had not thought about this issue. The Tribunal therefore does not accept this response explains the extensive delay and is of the view if he feared harm on return as he claims, especially if he had been threatened with his life and left in fear, he would have applied for protection sooner than over two years after his arrival. His delay in applying for a protection visa leads the Tribunal to find he is not genuine as to his fear of returning, did not depart in fear and is not genuine as to fearing return due to harm at the hands of the gangsters for the reasons he claims. This adds to the finding his evidence is not credible as to his claims which led him to leave Ghana and why he fears return.
[4] As outlined in the Department decision.
Credibility summary
For all the above reasons, considered cumulatively, the Tribunal does not find the applicant’s evidence to be credible, truthful and reliable as to why he fears return and the difficulties he claims he faced and will face on return. Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, in light of its findings that his evidence is not reliable as to the difficulties he claims he faced in Ghana and why he fears return, the Tribunal has no confidence in accepting that his evidence about the key aspects of his claims and the harm he faced was based on personal or actual experiences or for any of the reasons he claims. It considers his evidence was fabricated to create a claim to be owed protection.
In making these findings, the Tribunal has allowed for the possibility of discrepancies arising because of genuine lapses of memory, nervousness, fear and the manner in which responses can differ depending on the nature of and manner in which a question is asked. It is also sensitive to the various cultural differences that can impact on an applicant’s responses to questioning. It does not accept that any of these factors explain or excuse the concerns which, cumulatively, have led it to find that the applicant was not a reliable witness.
In making this finding, the Tribunal has also considered that some information has been consistent over time, including that while working with the army in Ghana together with police he led an operation where they captured money and drugs from gangsters, that the gangsters found his picture as it was publicly available via the media and threatened him with harm. However, the Tribunal considers that these matters are relatively easy matters to recall, and his consistency in these matters does not outweigh the significant credibility aspects outlined above and does not lead the Tribunal to change its view that the applicant has not provided credible evidence as to his claims for protection.
In making this finding, the Tribunal has considered the article dated [date] 2016 titled “ [title]” published on [website], referencing the applicant and his involvement in the events on [date] 2016. This article notes the following:
[details deleted].
Of concern, as raised with the applicant at the Tribunal hearing, is that this was only provided after the Department interview and no mention was made at the Department interview of an interview with a print news journalist two days after the operation on [date] 2016; rather, he talked about the operation being televised on the TV news. Also as raised with him, information indicates that corruption in the media is prevalent in Ghana[5] and that includes the media taking money or gifts to write certain stories. Information indicates that the general public and media users have a negative view of the Ghanaian media due to the incentives given to journalists. ‘Soli’ (short for solidarity) refers to when the journalist accepts either a gift or money for covering an event and it is prevalent in Ghana.[6] On the basis of these concerns, and on the basis of the applicant’s lack of credible evidence as to his involvement in this operation, the Tribunal places no weight on this article as evidence of the applicant’s claims.
[5] Ebbo Afful” Journalism, Election Campaigns and Democracy in Ghana” -
[6] . ‘Cash for coverage -The effects of the practice of soli on the Ghanaian media system', DW Akademie, 1 October 2018, p.6, 20191209105710
In making this finding, the Tribunal has considered the other articles and country information submitted by the applicant as to Vanguard operations and the difficulties faced by the military in Ghana, including [Mr A] . Specifically, the news articles submitted are as follows:
·“Operation Vanguard destroys mining equipment in Western region”, dated 18 March 2021. The article notes that the Western regional operation Vanguard destroyed 69 machines built on the river for mining. It notes operation Vanguard was launched on 31 July 2017, comprising military and police officers deployed to help fight and sustain the campaign against illegal mining and to prevent further pollution of the water bodies and land degradation.
·“Two dead, 4 severely injured in Ejura youth military clash”, dated 29 June 2021. The report notes that the military went to the town as the youth had taken to the streets to protest the death of a social media activist.
·“Military fight illegal miners in Operation Halt”, dated 11 May 2021, refers to the military fight against illegal miners. It notes that to ensure mining on water bodies in Ghana is immediately stopped, an operation began following a directive by the President to the Ghana Armed Forces to stop persons and the logistics involved in illegal mining.
·“Two Soldiers Bloodied in Brutal Assault Near Kasoa”, dated 25 August 2020, referring to two men believed to be soldiers being brutally assaulted at Dome Fase, a town in the Ga South municipality. The men were purportedly guarding the stone quarry which is in dispute. The residents pelted stones at the soldiers and the angry crowd of fifty overcame them and slashed them with machetes in the head and beat them. [7][Details deleted]. The article notes that the mob attacked and beat him to death with stones, building blocks and sticks after which they set him on fire. Over 50 people were arrested.
·“Soldier shot dead by armed robbers on Prang-Kintampo Road”, dated 23 May 2021, referring to military officer being shot dead by suspected armed robbers.
·“Soldier battles for life as 6 policemen gang up and beat him to a pulp”, dated 9 February 2021, referring to how a police officer was beaten by six police officers despite pulling out his ID card.
·An article dated [date] 2020 referring to the death of [Mr A] on [date] 2017 by the mob after mistaking him for an armed thief.
[7] [deleted]
There is no mention of the applicant in these articles. Based on the Tribunal finding that the applicant’s evidence lacks credibility as to his claims, including with regard to being threatened by gangsters and facing the difficulty he claims in Ghana, the Tribunal does not accept that these articles explain or excuse the concerns which, cumulatively, have led it to find that the applicant was not a reliable witness as to his claims.
Therefore, based on the applicant’s lack of credible evidence, and on the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant was ever involved in an operation with police to combat drug trafficking as part of a Vanguard operation on [date] 2016, where they came upon some gangsters or thugs or land armies, there was gun fire and they overpowered them and the gangsters left the money and drugs. The Tribunal does not accept his picture was taken by the media or he was identified by any media at the time, whether on TV or in print. It does not accept that, because his identity become publicly available, he was then repeatedly threatened with harm, including being chased on the [Highway] and having to remain at [Camp 1] in effective hiding until he departed. It does not accept his family went into hiding before or after he departed because of a fear of harm.
It follows it does not accept he was of interest at the time of his departure to the gangsters or thugs or land armies or anyone else for the reasons he claims. It follows he left the military voluntarily and not due to any concerns for his safety.
It follows, based on his lack of credible evidence, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant did not return to Ghana after [Event 1] because he feared for his life or he feared he would be attacked, harmed or killed at the hands of the gangsters.
It follows that the Tribunal does not accept he was or is of any interest to any group including the gangsters as he was involved in an operation against them or that he held or holds any concerns for his or his family’s safety or fears being harmed for any of the reasons he claims.
Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to Ghana and meet the refugee protection provisions of the Act, and does he meet the protection obligations under the complementary protection provisions of the Act?

Based on its findings as to the applicant’s credibility and findings of fact outlined in the paragraphs under the heading Credibility summary, the Tribunal does not accept that, were he to return, he and his family will be targeted by the gangsters or anyone else for any of the reasons he claims, including difficulties he faced in the past. It follows it does not accept he will be arrested, killed, harassed, threatened, attacked, beaten, tortured or unable to earn a livelihood.
It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of persecution involving serious harm were he to return to Ghana in the reasonably foreseeable future at the hands of the gangsters, thugs and land armies or anyone else for any of the reasons he claims. Similarly, based on the findings above on his lack of credible evidence as to his claims, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm on his return to Ghana at the hands of the gangsters, thugs and land armies or anyone else for any of the reasons he claims.
Summary
The Tribunal has considered whether the combination of each of the individual claims raised by the applicant would together create a real chance of him being subjected to serious harm in Ghana in the reasonably foreseeable future. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance the applicant would face serious harm for these reasons, if he returns in the reasonably foreseeable future. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal therefore is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
The Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Ghana, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A), on the basis of his claims considered individually or cumulatively.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
CONCLUSION
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).
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). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
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
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Date of hearing:              12 February 2025
Representative for the Applicant:             Ms Ashrita Zeeshan
APPENDIX – CRITERIA FOR PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (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.
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.
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). 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).
Under s 5J(1), 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–LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
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 ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
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, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
ATTACHMENT - 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.
…