2309671 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual who claimed to be a member of the Movement for Democratic Change in Zambia, an opposition political party, and an advocate for human rights and LGBT rights. The applicant asserted that he feared detention and death due to his political activities and that security services were still seeking him. The decision under review affirmed the refusal to grant the applicant a protection visa.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing the applicant's credibility and the veracity of his claims regarding political persecution and a well-founded fear of harm in Zambia. The court also considered whether the applicant had discharged his responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to establish Australia's protection obligations.

The court applied principles of fact-finding and credibility assessment, acknowledging the inherent difficulty in such tasks and the need for careful, fair, and reasonable evaluation. It noted that inconsistencies in an applicant's account may not always be significant and that the benefit of the doubt should be given to generally credible applicants who cannot substantiate all claims. The court considered the evidence presented, including country information, a property ownership deed, screenshots of a group chat, and photographs of a deceased individual, but found that the property deed was not materially relevant. The delegate's decision to refuse the visa was based on doubts about the applicant's veracity and credibility, a lack of evidence of continued political activity in Australia, and a failure to be satisfied that the applicant would be targeted by government authorities. The court affirmed the delegate's decision.