2213906 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a male national of Burkina Faso. The applicant had a history of visa applications in Australia dating back to 1997, including a previous protection visa refusal affirmed by the former Refugee Review Tribunal. Following his departure from Australia in 2001 and return in 2011 on a partner visa, his partner visa was cancelled due to a criminal conviction for importing a border-controlled drug. The applicant subsequently lodged the current protection visa application on 22 August 2019. The review was conducted by a delegate of the Minister.

The primary legal issues before the delegate were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the Act), which requires Australia to have protection obligations because the person is a refugee, or under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which relates to complementary protection where there is a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The delegate was required to assess the applicant's claims of being targeted by the Burkina Faso government for his involvement in anti-government protest activities with the Youth for Democracy Movement in 1996, and to consider any potential for significant harm if returned to Burkina Faso.

The delegate's reasoning focused significantly on the credibility of the applicant's claims, noting substantial inconsistencies between his 1997 protection visa application and his 2019 application. Specifically, the delegate highlighted a significant divergence in the applicant's account of his family's fate and his own alleged imprisonment. In 1997, the applicant claimed his family was murdered by authorities searching for him, and he fled immediately after a protest. In 2019, he claimed he was imprisoned after being captured on his way home from a protest, later released after his father bribed officials, and then fled. The delegate found these discrepancies, along with other inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence, undermined his credibility. The delegate also noted the applicant's criminal conviction in Australia and a prior jail sentence in another country for illegal entry.

Ultimately, the delegate concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under either the refugee or complementary protection grounds. There was no suggestion that the applicant qualified as a member of the family unit of a person who met these criteria. Accordingly, the delegate affirmed the decision to refuse the protection visa.