2205799 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Sierra Leone, sought review of a decision to refuse him a protection visa. He claimed he feared harm upon return to Sierra Leone due to his father's past role as a policeman, who he alleged collaborated with rebels, leading to his father's death and a subsequent fear for his own safety. He also contended that he would lack family support and access to essential mental health treatment in Sierra Leone, and that as a returnee from Australia, he would be perceived as wealthy and face kidnapping or death. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Sierra Leone.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of country information and relevant legislative provisions, including the definitions of "refugee" and "significant harm" under the Migration Act 1958. It noted that Sierra Leone had experienced a civil war from 1991 to 2002, but that peace had been established, and UNHCR had ceased refugee status for Sierra Leoneans in 2008. The Tribunal found that while the applicant's father was a policeman and was killed, there was no evidence to suggest that the applicant, who was a child at the time of the civil war and had not lived in Sierra Leone for over two decades, would be targeted for retribution. The Tribunal also found that the applicant's claims regarding mental health were not supported by sufficient evidence to establish a real risk of significant harm, noting his inconsistent compliance with prescribed medication.

Regarding the fear of being perceived as wealthy and targeted as a returnee, the Tribunal acknowledged potential negative perceptions but found no information supporting targeted attacks or violence against returnees, and noted government policies aimed at assisting reintegration. The Tribunal also found that the applicant would have some family support, as his grandmother resided in Sierra Leone. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, considering the cumulative effect of his claims and the country's post-conflict situation.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958.