2310186 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1670

2310186 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1670 (30 MAY 2025)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Representative: Mr Isaiah Okorie
Respondent:Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2310186
Tribunal:General Member Rosa Gagliardi
Date:30 May 2025

Place:Australian Capital Territory
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 30 May 2025 at 3:56pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Nigeria – fear of harm from step-mother, occult group and security forces – attacked and threatened after witnessing group ritual and altercation with step-mother at family/village meeting – illnesses and deaths of brothers – attacked again after relocating – delay in applying for protection – applied after cancellation of student visa affirmed – increased fears after mother’s illness and death – mental health and treatment – employment in Australia – returnee and employment prospects – wife’s application for permanent residency through employer – inconsistent and unconvincing evidence and late claims – relationship to woman: step-mother, step-aunt or neighbour – passage of time and no recent contact – brother’s deaths unlikely to be related – country information – group not widespread – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 65
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 16 June 2023 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a national of Nigeria applied for the visa on 5 August 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the visa applicant did not meet the refugee criteria or the complementary protection criteria.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 February 2025 to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
BACKGROUND
The applicant fears his stepmother, [Ms A], may charm him on return to Nigeria. He fears she would use the fetish occult organisation called the Ogboni to attack him. He fears she can corrupt the security forces to kidnap, kill or threaten him.
Background
The applicant’s migration history is as follows:
·18 October 2011 – granted a student (TU-572) visa
·[October] 2011 – the applicant arrived in Australia
·3 September 2013 – the applicant lodged an application for a Voc Ed Sctr Further Stay (Web) (TU-572) visa
·19 August 2015 – the applicant was granted a Voc Ed Sctr Further Stay (Web) (TU 572) visa
·19 September 2015 – the applicant was granted a Voc Ed Sctr Further Stay (Web) (572) visa
·11 January 2017 – a cancellation was commenced under s:116 General Power
·28 March 2017 – the applicant’s Student visa was cancelled
·28 March 2017 The applicant lodged a review of the cancellation at the AAT
·13 June 2019 – the AAT affirmed the cancellation
·17 July 2019 – the applicant lodged an application for a Permanent Protection visa (XA 866)
·31 July 2019 – the application was deemed invalid as s46(2A) requirement was not complied with
·5 August 2019 – the applicant lodges a second application for a Permanent Protection visa (XA 866)
The applicant’s application
In his application the applicant stated that he could explain why it took so long to lodge a Protection visa, stating the threat he faced before he left his home country grew grave in the past 2 years since his mother’s death.
Asked to provide reasons as to why he left Nigeria, the applicant wrote in part [as written]:
At the time I escaped Nigeria for my studies, I did not know that this woman will continue to hurt me but I was surprised when my mum fell ill, she informed my mum that I will be next after her. Since my mother died, I have been afraid of what befalls me.
My mother died of sickness that could only be attributed to as a spiritual attack, I am afraid of this lady reach if I am forced to Nigeria.
Asked to set out whether the applicant had sought assistance within his country after the harm, the applicant wrote that he had not:
The reason is because the fear and those involved have political and security influence. If you report such matters, apart from the fact that the police will support the richer party, they will bully the smaller party and you will end up been (sic) in prison for a crime you reported to the police. I believe that because she is a member of the ogboni group, that the security forces will not be able to help and this can put my life in much risk.
Statutory declaration attached to the application signed 5 August 2019
The applicant wrote at the time that he left Nigeria because his father became involved with a woman named [Ms A]. The applicant declared that his parents’ marriage broke down when he was [age] years of age, and the breakdown was attributed to [Ms A] who it was claimed was a member of an occult group called Ogboni. He added:
I grew up bitter and despised about this lady who broke up our home. When I became ill again, it was suspected that the lady was responsible. This became apparent when I was viciously attacked and beaten by an unknown group of men sometime in March 1997.
I was moving around Easter (sic) Nigeria, staying with family relatives as my parents were disputing because of this lady…In August 1994, my second to our eldest brother, [Mr B] died in our house in the village as a result of the same body itching and headache, suspected to be spiritual attack from the same woman. He died at the age of [age] years and every one in my town is aware of his sudden and painful death.
When I was [age] years old, the marriage broke completely and I was surprised that my father will start seeing this other lady full time. It was very hard for my mother that a woman who was a neighbour has actually ruined her marriage and the church was unhelpful at this second time.
The applicant wrote that he moved within the villages in Imo state due to the fear as he was very sick. It took help from family relatives before he was able to escape to Lagos and lived there in hiding until he secured admission to study abroad (Australia).
Asked to explain what he thought would happen to him on return to Nigeria the applicant responded:
If I am forced to Nigeria, there is no doubt that it would take only a few days before I would be targeted. I may be able to hide for a few days after arrival but there is a solid chance that once she is aware that I am around, she [w]ill surely carry out her threats of killing me. Further, I don’t want to spend my entire life in hiding. It will be bad for me and deprive me of a life I want to live.
The applicant expressed the view that he would be harmed if he returned to Nigeria:
The greatest fear of what she may do or how she may do it. I am sure that I will be beaten psychically and tortured. I am unsure how she wants to do this but I cannot give her a chance to ruin my life in the hands of someone responsible for killing my mother. I will face physical and spiritual harm.
The applicant did not think the authorities of his country would protect him because he considered the authorities were corrupt and “will likely help the highest bid carry out the evil. I cannot trust the Nigerian police or security forces due to how they have acted in the past”.
The applicant also declared that it became clearer when his father became ill that this woman was a member of the Ogbani group and she made threats during the family meeting where the elders were checking to see what exactly went wrong with his father and:
I was told that she was after me as well in Lagos because of the comments I made that she was a witch and a homewrecker. I panicked even if I was afar because of the feared Ogboni group and their reach. So my family started to find ways to get me outside the country.
…..
I have also enrolled at [an Institution] located in Sydney to study Advance Diploma of [Subject]. However, sadly as I was studying this program, the activities in Nigeria regarding my parents were bothersome, particularly my mum.
I was informed of my mum, was seriously sick at that time that I was planning to return home, but she panicked and said I should not return because my life would be in jeopardy.
I was worried and stopped studying and was on a constant telephone with my mum. The doctors could not diagnose what exactly was wrong, and my family elders stated it was undoubtedly from the other lady ([Ms A]). My mum became seriously ill, and this woman was the only love of my life. She had sold her plot of land and jewellery for me to be able to travel and study in Australia.
On the [date] May 2017, after about two years of been ill, my mother died, and may her lovely soul rest in peace.
…...
This disappointment of my mum’s death and the lack of travel approval made me depressed, and I did not want to leave my room for several days. My friends in Australia were concerned about my health and then forced me to see a doctor who later referred me to a psychologist, and these made my situation even more, worse because I was unsure what I was living for. This is a griefing [sic] period for me.
Subsequently, I went for counselling services, and I would provide evidence of this in my future correspondence. There is no doubt that this g[ief] period in my life also had ripple effects considering that I passed through the red lights at the same periods, parked wrongly in some lots and I was not thinking properly. I became forgetful.
I recall that I travelled to [Venue]…. for an IELTS exam, but I forgot to take my passport…and my exams were cancelled. This made me more depressed….
I regret the delay in not applying for a protection visa because the situation in Nigeria recently changed for the worse and it was my belief that things will improve and I can safely return home. It was only recently that I was advised the …. Lawyers and migration…that it was an appropriate visa to apply for and I regret the lack of awareness after all these while….
Statutory declaration dated 31 May 2023
After the Department queried several matters with the applicant and asked for further information the applicant submitted his statutory declaration of 31 May 2023. The statutory declaration starts off with the applicant discussing his job and contribution to the Australian society, his awards from the community in Canberra and his workplace, his training, his mother’s death certificate, his responsibilities in paying rent, bills and educational qualifications in Australia, and the insecurity in his home state, Imo.
The applicant then went on to address the issues raised by the Department concerning the lack of significant details such as dates and locations relating to his claims that he was targeted, assaulted and threatened by his father’s wife, who was a member of the Ogboni group. The Department referred to the applicant not providing any document to support his claims.
In response the applicant wrote that this incident was on 7 July 1995, at around 4pm near the village square of [Location]. During the attack he sustained some injuries and bruises and that the only evidence he could provide is a couple of scars on his [hand]. He was not taken to hospital for treatment. The applicant has submitted an unclear photo of his [hand]. The applicant appears to be on a bus or a plane when the photo was taken.
In explaining why there was limited evidence submitted with his application, the applicant stated in 1995 there was no technology such as mobile phones, video cameras, internet or journalists to cover the incident. He was helpless on the ground as a victim and there were no friends or family around to take notes, therefore he had no evidence.
The Department had asked for details about the Ogboni group such as where they were based, what activities they were involved in and who the leader of the group was. The applicant wrote that this was an evil and secret society and only their members know themselves, and their leader.
The Department advised the applicant to provide evidence that the applicant was threatened by his father’s wife or Ogboni group, evidence of any threat and details of specific date and location of this threat. The applicant responded that it occurred on 11 July 1995 at his father’s house family meeting where she was swearing and threatening to kill him, and all the people present in the family meeting. All the elders present at the meeting have all passed away including his parents.
The Department asked the applicant to provide further details of his move to Lagos. The applicant provided an address and who lived with him, stating he lived there for 15 years prior to his arrival in Australia.
The Department asked the applicant whether since his arrival in Australia, his family had received any further threats from his father’s wife or the Ogboni group and if so to provide copies of such correspondence. The applicant responded that he did not travel to his village even when his biological mother passed away, therefore he did not know about their activities.
In response to why there was a delayed lodgement of his protection application, the applicant responded that it took him time to understand the system and to get the right support and information. In addition, the existing stress and pressure of his life situation was inconvenient. He was studying on a student visa and there was no urgency to apply for protection because the study visa kept him safe in Australia.
The applicant also submitted a Medical Certificate for his mother stating she died of “Acute peritonitis” [in] May 2017. There is a question mark over the “secondary cause”.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The hearing
The applicant stated he was from Imo State, Nigeria. He used to have three brothers, but they passed away. One in 2001, another in 1994, and the other in 2021 when he was in Australia, and he had not attended the funeral of his brother who died in 2021. The Tribunal asked whether the applicant had death certificates for his brothers’ deaths, and he stated that it was suspected he was poisoned by the same lady in question. The applicant stated that there was no coronial or other inquiry to determine the cause of death. The Tribunal asked whether someone on behalf of the family had advocated to determine the cause of death, and he responded no. He confirmed that no one advocated to go to the police to say they thought foul play had been a factor in the death.
The applicant noted he did not feel well sometimes and was forgetful. The applicant stated he did see a doctor and went for counselling. The Tribunal asked whether a report could be provided setting out what the appointments involved and why he was being treated. The applicant stated that he did go for counselling if he felt things were not going well for him. He saw his doctor if he was in pain. The applicant stated he had a major episode when his mother passed away. He took time off from work and developed knee problems and took time to get rid of the pain. He had recently attended a counsellor prior to the hearing, telling her he was attending a hearing and she provided him with a supporting letter, and he would submit that and other letters of support from his workplace as he worked in [work] sectors.
The Tribunal turned the inquiry to what had happened to him in Nigeria. The applicant stated he had relied on others doing things for him. For example, his student visa was cancelled, and his lawyer had advanced the applicant had no money to pay school fees. The applicant did not know what had been submitted but he found out later in 2019 that it was a different story altogether.
A lawyer had told him that as he had not returned to Nigeria, he could not provide evidence to convince the Department and advised him not to provide any evidence. That is why there was no solid evidence to support his claims at the time. The applicant stated that now he had the opportunity to tell his entire story. He stated that the lady from an occult group, the Ogboni targeted him. Her attack came from that group because [Ms A] was part of it. They had a family meeting, and he openly told her that she was a witch. In his culture people did not dare say that. One evening after coming back from church they saw they were performing rituals. She stated that now he knew she was a member of the group and could expose her to the community as a member.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to be specific about how he met this lady in the first instance. He responded that she was married to her uncle. The Tribunal noted that it understood [Ms A] had married his father. He stated that was one of the omissions of his former lawyer. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had signed several documents referring to his father having married [Ms A]. The applicant stated that his lawyer wrote that for him. The applicant stated there were some mistakes. The Tribunal noted that the statutory declaration provided signed on 9 August 2019, clearly stated that his parents’ marriage broke up because of [Ms A].
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had signed another statutory declaration on 31 May 2023, which did not indicate that it was someone else who married [Ms A]. The Tribunal observed that it was becoming confused as to who the protagonists in his story were. The visa applicant told his lawyer that it needed to be corrected. The Tribunal asked why he signed something when it was incorrect. The visa applicant responded that his lawyer was in Melbourne while he was in Canberra. He only talked to him on the phone. The Tribunal stated it did not explain why he stated something completely different in two statutory declarations when he was asked to clarify and provide details of his claims. The applicant stated that now he had the opportunity to give his account.
The Tribunal queried whether an interpreter was required as the applicant insisted on giving his evidence in English. The migration agent at the hearing stated it was not necessary. The Tribunal did not have any difficulty in understanding the applicant and vice versa but given the variations on his claims wanted there to be no misunderstanding. The migration agent stated he wanted to clarify that there was never anywhere in the latter declaration read out by the Tribunal that the woman married the applicant’s father. In the previous ones there might have been. The previous lawyer may not have understood the applicant.
The Tribunal stated that it had asked the applicant to narrate from the beginning what had happened. The applicant stated there was a first and then a second attack. The Tribunal asked the applicant to provide details about his background. He stated his parents could not afford to send him to university, so he went to learn the trade of [occupation 1] under the tutorship of [an occupation 1] for 15 years in Lagos.
The Tribunal asked how he met [Ms A]. He stated he grew up knowing her. She lived by herself. If there was an issue in the town, they would invite everyone, and she was a member of the village. The Tribunal asked the applicant how he became aware that this lady was an occultist and did she declare such openly at the claimed family meeting. The applicant stated yes, she did. Asked when this might have occurred, he stated it was in 1997 “but the second one was in the declaration”. The Tribunal again asked how this lady was connected to his family. He stated that the brother who passed away in 1994 did so because of her threats to kill him, because she was a member of an occult group. The Tribunal again asked whether this lady was married to her father or her uncle. He stated in 2010 she married her uncle. He added that another thing that was not in the declaration, was that the group of boys she sent to attack him told him that “the lady” sent them.

The applicant stated she used her group to attack him. They had branches in Imo state and Nigeria and other countries. He had developed a fear of returning to Nigeria because he might be kidnapped. On 11 July 2011, three months before he came to Australia he was attacked. The Tribunal asked why this lady would target his mother, brother and himself. The applicant stated that his mother mentioned this lady’s name and even the medical certificate stated that it had something to do with her tummy. [Ms A] threatened her. The Tribunal noted that the death certificate recorded peritonitis for the cause of his mother’s death which was an infection. The applicant responded it was a spiritual attack so the doctor could not diagnose that directly.
The Tribunal asked why she held a grudge and targeted his family. The applicant stated that one reason was because they saw them while performing their rituals. The Tribunal asked what the ritual was and he stated, “the ritual”. The Tribunal asked what he saw, and he answered, “We saw where they are doing it”. He and his brother saw them. She believed that because she saw them performing the ritual they would expose them to the entire community because they are into secrecy.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had stated that [Ms A] had exposed herself as a member of the Ogboni at the village meeting and wondered why she would do this. The visa applicant responded she did say that. The Tribunal asked the applicant to be specific about what the rituals were and what he witnessed. He stated that the rituals involved human parts. They saw them and ran away and in seeing them she believed that they were going to expose them. Asked when they saw them, he stated in 1997. The Tribunal asked whether the family meeting where she outed herself as an occultist had occurred prior to him and his brother observing the rituals, and he stated that the family meeting was afterwards.
The visa applicant said he was also attacked in Lagos as they tried to kidnap him but the man who went after him said that the lady sent him. He managed to escape. Even when his mother passed away, he was not able to return to Nigeria because he was on a Bridging Visa (E).
The applicant stated he had been living in Australia since 2011 and that is why he wanted to make Australia his home.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how he knew that this lady some 14 years later was still alive. The applicant responded that even though he had no family he did have school mates. He sometimes talked to them on [Social media]. The Tribunal asked whether the applicant asked his former classmate whether this lady, [Ms A], was still alive and he stated yes. He said she was there, but he was not interested in knowing her business. The Tribunal noted that this was even though she was married to her uncle. The applicant stated that even his uncle was now deceased. He stated they had no children.
The Tribunal asked whether they had told anyone of what they saw at the ritual. The applicant stated that had his brother been alive he could have been a witness.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain in his own words what the rituals he saw performed involved. The visa applicant stated that they were having this ritual and he and his brother were passing, and they saw them. The Tribunal asked whether the rituals were being performed in the open, for example. The applicant responded yes, and she was not the only one there – she was there with her group. The Tribunal asked the applicant to be specific about what human parts they observed in the ritual. The applicant stated there was a body facing downwards, and they were already dead. The applicant and his brother then fled. When asked the applicant stated he did not know how the person who was sacrificed died. The Tribunal asked whether perhaps they were preparing the body for a funeral. The applicant responded that would not happen in an open place – they did that at a mortuary or in a traditional way, but this was in an open place.
The Tribunal asked whether the police asked any questions about the events they had witnessed. The applicant stated it was not like here that you could report things. Sometimes people died and were kidnapped and used the body parts for a ritual. The Tribunal asked the applicant what part of the body exactly they were making a ritual over. He responded the legs and head had been cut off already and there was like a candle (but not a candle) with a lot of smoke, and they were doing incantations. That’s how they knew it was a ritual. The Tribunal noted that what he had described was quite graphic and when the Tribunal had previously asked him on several occasions to specify what the ritual was, he had stated that it had involved human parts, but he had not specified such an elaborate account. The Tribunal asked whether in fact he considered that the person had been killed by the Ogboni and [Ms A], and the applicant responded yes because they used the body parts for rituals. He was not sure if the deceased was a man or woman. The Tribunal asked how they disposed of the legs, and he responded they used them for the ritual. It was a well-known event in the west of Nigeria.
The Tribunal asked what month in 1997 he witnessed this event he said it might have been in July.
Then they had a village meeting in which he recited to everyone what had happened. The Tribunal asked the applicant where the meeting was held precisely, and he stated at the village meeting house. He stated it was in July. The applicant stated his family received threats and that is why they had the meeting. The Tribunal asked the applicant to detail what the threats were. He stated it was a threat to him from [Ms A] including in front of the village elders. She threatened to kill him. The Tribunal asked whether he was threatened before the village meeting, and he stated yes. Asked where he was, he stated that he was at his father’s home because he had called her a witch. The Tribunal noted that he had stated that the accusation had occurred at the village meeting and not before. Again, the Tribunal asked the applicant where precisely he was when [Ms A] made the initial threat. The applicant stated she talked to them when they saw the ritual.
The Tribunal stated that it appeared that the applicant and his brother went up to where the dead body was, and she made that threat before he and his brother ran away. Asked what [Ms A] said precisely he responded that she said she was going to kill them. The second threat was at the village meeting. The applicant stated he told his parents, and they took her to the village meeting. The Tribunal asked to narrate how the meeting unfolded. He responded that his mother introduced him, and his parents spoke on his behalf. The Tribunal asked at what point in the meeting the applicant called this lady a witch and why he would have said this when he knew that this would be culturally dangerous. He stated she was about to knock the applicant on the head, but his parents prevented that.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had called [Ms A] a witch – a very offensive terms but he had previously stated that she had exposed herself at the meeting as being involved in the occult – being a witch. The applicant stated that they were a powerful group and had a superior power and could do what they wanted. Another threat was that they came to his family to warn him and said because he had seen their performance where they had severed the head and legs, she wanted him to join the occult group. This was the only way for him to be free of the threats. As a Christian he did not believe in killing people for rituals and he said no. The Tribunal observed that this was an entirely new claim that she was forcibly trying to recruit him. He stated he wanted to add it because she wanted him to join him the group. The Tribunal noted this was a significant matter that had not been raised earlier as a claim – he stated he had the opportunity to say everything so now he was doing so.
The representative stated that it was not a new claim – the applicant was particularising his claims. The Tribunal responded that across the applicant’s statutory declarations at the time of hearing he had not mentioned that he had been threatened to join this group. The Tribunal noted that it appeared that this matter was added to his claims to bolster his case. He stated that she tried to recruit him a couple of times. The Tribunal asked the applicant to be specific about where and when this occurred. He stated that the first occasion was when she visited him. She came twice and then when he was coming back from the stream. The Tribunal asked why she wanted him in the group when it was clear he did not want to join. He stated he told her due to his religion he did not want to be part of that group. It became a red flag to them that he said no. The applicant stated he saw this lady in dreams threatening he had to join the group.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain when he was attacked. He hesitated and then stated in August 1997, when he was coming from the river and the second one was in
27 July 2011, prior to coming to Australia. He stated he had sustained an injury in Lagos. He stated that four boys attacked him when he came from the river. The applicant was ambushed. They beat him with their hands. He did not go to a doctor because his parents had no money. They ensured he left the village. He did not know them. [Ms A] might have hired someone from the next village. The applicant stated that he was in Lagos when he sustained his injury. He had a fall while they were hitting him. He ran away as they wanted to kidnap him.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to provide details of that attack in Lagos. He stated it was late in the evening. He had gone to church as on Wednesdays they had prayer meetings. On the way back these boys attacked him. He fell on the roadside, and they showed him his photo saying this lady sent him. The Tribunal noted the scar was not an insignificant one. He stated he bled but he did not see a doctor because they had no money. He treated the wound himself given he had worked in a [workplace].
The Tribunal noted that health services were provided by the public sector in Nigeria so why was cost an issue[1]. He said that there was a public health sector if you could get there. The Tribunal asked whether he had gone to the police about any matter and he said the system did not work there. Only rich people could access services.
[1] Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Nigeria 3 December 2020, DFAT Country Inormation Report - Nigeria. [at 2.20]
Asked how [Ms A] had harmed his brother the applicant responded he had headaches and rashes non-stop, and the applicant also had such afflictions in 1997. His brother’s symptoms led to death. The applicant contracted the itching in 1998. Asked if he had gone to a doctor at the time, he replied he believed he did. The applicant stated that when it was a skin infection the doctor could not find the cause because it was spiritual. The applicant stated he had mentioned it in his statutory declaration. The Tribunal confirmed that some of the elements in the statutory declarations were true then and others not, and he stated that was the case. The doctors suggested it was poisoning. Someone might have added something to a meal, but the applicant’s brother survived another 8 months. The Tribunal asked what the poison was, and he responded the doctor said it was “food poisoning”. The Tribunal noted that the doctor must have had an idea of what exactly the poison was. The applicant stated he had been going for treatment.
The Tribunal asked why if the lady wanted to kill him (the applicant) did she not keep poisoning him. The applicant responded it depended on her intention. She sent those people to harm him. The Tribunal asked why her brother was more of a target than he was and he responded that his brother passed away and the she concentrated on him. The Tribunal asked how the poison got into his mother’s cooking. He stated anyone could poison food even at the shops. There was no autopsy. He stated you had to plan and target someone for example in a café, and you could pay someone to poison someone at the café.
The Tribunal noted that this seemed a random way of going about things as someone else could have purchased the food stuffs and they too would have been poisoned. The Tribunal asked how it was possible to make sure that the poison was in the food his mother would purchase. He responded that you could go to someone else’s house to get chilly or dried fish. It was a different scenario here in Australia. The applicant agreed there had to have been an accomplice.
The Tribunal asked who else [Ms A] hurt in his family. He stated his brothers and his mother. His mother was also poisoned. The applicant stated he currently had unexplained pain, and the Tribunal asked whether this pain could be related to the events in Nigeria. The applicant stated that he intended to marry in Nigeria someone from Australia, but the girl’s parents would say who are your in-laws and what could she say. The family refused. On
4 April 2024 he met online an Asian lady and explained to the parents his condition that he was not getting younger, and he had no family of his own. But his Bridging visa did not permit him to go to [Country], so he paid for them to come to Australia, and he got married culturally [in] April 2024. The Tribunal asked whether he could go and live with his wife in [Country] and he stated that he would not be able to come back to Australia. She completed her early childhood education in the ACT as an overseas student. She lived with him. She was not an Australian citizen yet. Now she would be sponsored for permanent residency by her employer. The applicant confirmed he could obtain Australian residency through his wife but not immediately.
The applicant stated he would be found all over Nigeria by [Ms A] and the Ogboni, on his return to Nigeria, even after 14 years. The Tribunal asked why if they had been so determined to pursue him, they had permitted him to leave his country, and he confirmed they were a sophisticated and powerful group and had networks everywhere. They allowed him to leave because at that point he was running away and the authorities at that time did not know. The Tribunal noted that the applicant would have had to interact with the authorities to obtain a passport and student visa to Australia. He responded no. He told no one he was coming as he was scared.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had stated that he fled Nigeria, but he did not apply for a protection visa on arrival in Australia, staying here for a very long time prior to finally doing so. He responded it took him a long time to apply because at that point he was free and he had all these lawyers but he only knew about student visas. He did not know about the different category of visas. The Tribunal noted that a student visa was not a permanent visa, and he again stated he did not know the system then.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant had applied at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of his student visa cancellation. The applicant stated he was represented by Legal Aid and the Tribunal asked why he did not tell Legal Aid about the fact he was fleeing Nigeria.
The applicant reiterated that he worked in an industry where staff were needed in Australia.
Statutory declaration submitted after the hearing, signed on 28 April 2025
The applicant claims he was raised a Christian in the eastern part of Nigeria. The applicant is the only surviving member of his immediate family. His father, who passed away in August 2010, was a traditional [farmer]. The applicant has declared that his mother passed away [in] May 2017, when he was already in Australia and is linked to the reason the applicant fears returning to Nigeria.
The applicant’s aunt advised the applicant against returning to Nigeria because his father’s new wife ([Ms A]) the Ogboni member, was after his life and would harm him if he attended his mother’s funeral. His three brothers are deceased. One of them sustained a machete attack from the Ogboni. The last of his brothers was shot by gunmen the applicant surmises they were sent by the Ogboni fraternity.
The applicant declares he came to Australia in 2011 on a student visa to escape the threats from the Ogboni cult. All was going well until his mother fell ill during his studies after she was attacked by the Ogboni, and the applicant started struggling with his studies leading to the cancellation of his student visa.
Prior to his application to have the AAT review the student cancellation, he had no awareness that he was eligible to apply for a Protection visa based on the threats and trauma. The applicant continued in his statutory declaration:
·Persecution of the applicant began in March 1997 when his late brother, [Mr B], and he stumbled upon ritualistic practices of the Ogboni in respect of a dead body. His brother and he had to take a shortcut and saw what appeared to be a group of people performing rituals over what looked like a “severed human hand” and other remains. His father’s wife, [Ms A], and other members of the Ogboni saw them and advanced towards them uttering threats so they ran for their lives.
·As [Ms A] and her cult members knew they had witnessed their rituals this significantly increased the risk to the applicant’s life. Their family tried to report their concerns to the police at [Location] but they refused to act insisting it was better handled at the village meeting level. He was also told that if he wanted to stay alive, they should not speak of these things again. He realised that even the police could not protect them.
·[Ms A] was rumoured in the applicant’s village to be a powerful member of the Ogboni cult. At the village on 27 July 1997 following her threats, the applicant called [Ms A] a witch to her face – a serious and dangerous accusation in Nigerian culture and she tried to knock his head during the meeting. Alleged witches were burnt by an irate mob as they were illegal in Nigeria. [Ms A] denied the allegation and swore at him and told him repeatedly there would be consequences for having disrespected her.
·On 6 August 1997, the applicant was returning from a stream when [Ms A] confronted him again with a group of four men. They hit them on the back of their heads with a staff that had some powdery substance on it and pushed his brother to the ground. [Ms A] and other Ogboni members threatened to kill them and family if they did not become Ogboni members and swear an oath of secrecy.
·They got home and reported to their parents and after this incident the applicant developed rashes and headaches after [Ms A]’s visit and his brother developed the same ailments. While the applicant survived his symptoms, his brother, [Mr B], did not and died 8 months later in 1998. The applicant fled to Lagos thinking it would be safer in the city.
·The applicant had hoped to find anonymity in Lagos but then his brother [Mr C] was killed by the Ogboni in 2001, coming back from the farm when masked men with machetes were chanting Ogboni cult chants attacked his brother, and he died on the way to hospital of his wounds. The applicant became afraid and moved to another area within Lagos. But the cult still found him.
·On 27 July 2011 just months before he departed Nigeria for Australia, he was attacked by four muscular men while returning from a Catholic Church in Lagos. They attacked him and told him who sent them. He suffered injuries to his wrist and elbow. He did not attend a hospital out of fear that the cult may have infiltrated health facilities, especially public hospitals. He treated himself at home using his [workplace] experience. He still has scars and nerve pain in those areas.
·These incidents confirmed that that relocation within Nigeria was not safe for him. The Ogbani cult operates throughout Nigeria and has a deeply entrenched presence in rural and urban areas. They have members in traditional institutions, law enforcement and local political offices. They use physical and spiritual means to intimidate and harm their targets.
·The cult’s reach is not limited by geography. It is strengthened by their ability to track, intimidate and destroy people who have defied them or spoken out, especially those who witnessed or interfered with their spiritual rituals. The applicant is a known “resister”. They have targeted him repeatedly in multiple states, not just in his village.
·The applicant stated that he got to know through his aunt that his mother was in fact poisoned. She complained terribly of stomach-ache and had a swollen abdomen in the days leading to her death and his aunt has provided an affidavit to that effect.
·The applicant has no family left in Nigeria and no social or financial support network. He would be left to survive on the streets, without money, shelter, or access to medical or psychological care. He suffers from PTSD, anxiety, and depression and his condition would only worsen in an unstable and hostile environment. The applicant requires medication that is not available or affordable in Nigeria, especially to someone without family or housing.
·The applicant states that the trauma from the deaths of his three brothers, the cult threats and the attack he has suffered over the years have deeply affected his psychological wellbeing. His dreams about [Ms A] are not just dreams. In Nigerian belief systems people like [Ms A] are thought to have spiritual powers and even from a distance the applicant fears he is being spiritually targeted. He looks over his shoulder even in Australia and does not associate with the Nigerian community here.
·The applicant fears that if he is returned to Nigeria, he will suffer serious harm, torture or death at the hands of the Ogbani cult. He has endured physical attacks and spiritual torment for refusing to be initiated into the cult and for standing by his Christian faith.
·Over more than two decades the applicant has been threatened multiple times by cult members, especially [Ms A] who publicly vowed to kill him in 1997 during a family meeting. He had been attacked in his village and Lagos. He had been stalked, monitored, confronted by individuals he had never seen and knew his personal details, showed him photographs of himself and referenced his past confrontations with the cult. The applicant claims to have been subjected to long-term psychological trauma, including nightmares and flashbacks and spiritual attacks to this day and continues to see [Ms A] in his dreams saying his time had come.
·The applicant fears being abducted, forcibly initiated or ritually killed for breaking a spiritual taboo and speaking out against the cult. He will be subjected to blood oaths, sacrifices involving animals or humans, and forced allegiance to a power he did not believe in. He will be seen as a traitor for having resisted for so long.
·The applicant argues these are not speculative matters but are based on lived experience. In his community there are well-known cults and secret societies, the Ogboni cult being the most powerful. His family has always stood in strong opposition to these societies. The Ogboni cult considers families like his to be rebellious and spiritually dangerous. As a result, their household was labelled a threat to the local order and became a target of unwanted attention and spiritual intimidation.
·It is argued that cumulatively his profile places him at risk because he is:
-    A known dissenter of the Ogboni cult who is a living witness to their brutality and death rituals.
-    A Christian in opposition to their abhorrent ritualistic beliefs.
-    A Western returnee which in Nigeria often marks a person as either wealthy, arrogant or spiritually dangerous.
-    A person who has publicly defied a senior cult member, seen their rituals, and survived attacks.
-    A traumatized and mentally and emotionally vulnerable person with no immediate family alive save for a maternal aunt in the village where he fears persecution.

The statutory declaration included annexures some of which are as follows:
·Letter from [Monsignor D], Parish Priest, dated 5 May 2025, stating that a parishioner [has] assured [Monsignor D] that the applicant has been resident in the parish and attended church regularly for the past 13 years and that “While I cannot testify to the character of [the applicant] having only met him casually, I note that Dr xxx was very positive in his assessment of [the applicant]…”.
·Birth certificate for the applicant.
·Death certificate for the applicant’s father, reflecting he died [in] August 2010 from [medical condition] in Imo state.
·Mother’s death certificate indicating she died [in] May 2017 from Acute Peritonitis.
·Death certificate for brother of the applicant, [Mr B], [Age] years, died [in] October 1998, the primary cause being “poisoning” and secondary cause of death “Pruritis(sic)/itching”.
·Death certificate for [Mr E], brother of applicant, who died at [age] years of age [in] April 2021, who died from gunshot injuries.
·Death certificate from [Hospital] attesting that the applicant’s brother, [Mr C] died from “multiple matchet cuts on the head” as the primary cause and the secondary cause being profuse bleeding [in] September 2001.
·Representative’s submission dated 16 May 2025, providing country information regarding the Ogboni cult which it is argued support the applicant’s claims and that there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm were the applicant to return to Nigeria now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. The submission states, among other things, “[The applicant] fits within the UNHCR’s identified at-risk profile: he is a returnee from the West, a Christian, and a public dissenter from a powerful traditional order”.
·A DFAT Country Information Report Nigeria, 3 December 2020.
·UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Afghanistan
·2023 US Human Rights Report (Nigeria)
·2024 Policy and Legal Advocacy Centre (PLAC) Human Rights Report.
·Further country information on the Ogboni cult, their rituals, symbols, hand signs and human sacrifice.
·US Commission on International Religious Freed (USCIRF 2023 Report).
·Letter by [Employer 1] dated 18 February 2025 stating the applicant had been employed in [Division].
·Support letter from [Organisation], dated 24 February 2025. The [Organisation] provides services for migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, confirming the applicant has been a client of their service since February 2024 and has actively engaged in counselling support around his mental health needs and has continued to “express feelings of worry and stress due to his experience of living in limbo over his protection visa application. He has reported feeling stressed, anxious whenever the tribunal review makes contact with him. He lives in fear if he returns back to his home country as “he reported that one of his father wives has made threats to harm him through occult forces (witchcraft). He expressed that this fear and uncertainty about his protection visa triggers his mental health and leaves him feeling stressed and anxious. [The applicant] has hope to live a life that is safe and free”.
·Letter from ‘[Employer 2]’, dated 11 March 2025 which confirms the applicant had been working [there] as [an occupation 2], and that he undertakes a variety of duties which he performs most effectively.
·Cash receipts for counselling for three sessions over 2017-2018, and attached letter by a counsellor, dated 27 April 2025 stating the applicant had been engaged in counselling sessions with her in 2017 over a period of about two months and that she “can attest that he is conscientious in his approach to his work and community life in Australia, and that he is a valuable member of the Australian community”.
·Report by [Dr F] dated 8 May 2025 regarding the applicant’s symptoms and claiming the applicant is suffering from PTSD.
·Medical history for the applicant as at 15 May 2025, stating the applicant is not recorded as taking medications and that his active condition as at 2021 was “stress”. The history states, “note recent entry re:stress and sick cert, feels not ready to return to work, has 2 jobs in [work sectors], has been feeling stressed recently, is moving house and has been packing, also having some generalised body aches from the moving of boxes, no depression, no anxiety, no DSH or suicidal ideation. Imp: stressed.”
·Psychotherapist’s receipts for 2 August 2019; 7 August 2019; 4 September 2019,
11 September 2019.
·Sworn Affidavit in the High Court of Lagos state, dated 3 April 2025, by [Mr G], a neighbour of the applicant in Lagos when the applicant was learning a trade in a [shop]. The applicant told him “I was attacked by a group of four men with my photo on my way to a nearby store, they told me during the attack they were members of the Ogboni secret society”. When asked what happened to his [hand] as he sustained some injuries clearly seen, the applicant told [Mr G] that the incident took place on 7 July 2011. He did not go to hospital as he has knowledge of how to treat himself and “I do visit him each day to see how is doing. I got a phone call from him after three months that he let for Australia, but did not inform me before leaving.”
·Sworn Affidavit in the High Court of Lagos by [Ms H], dated [March 2025] by the sister of the applicant’s mother (his aunt) stating that “my sister,
[named] died as a result of the complications of spiritual Attack and poisoning by [Ms A] and her Ogboni social group in Nigeria [in] May 2017…”.
·Letter from [named person], [Occupation 2], ACT confirming the applicant’s employment at [Employer 2] in the ACT region. The writer discusses the activities of the applicant, [details deleted]. The letter states, among other things, that the applicant is a helpful and approachable colleague.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
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.
Mandatory considerations
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.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
The issue in this case is whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution if he were to return to Nigeria now or in the reasonably foreseeable future (36.2(a)) or whether if the applicant is removed from Australia there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm (s.36(2)(aa)).
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Does the applicant satisfy the refugee criterion for protection?
The Tribunal considers that it should not set the bar unreasonably high when assessing credibility. Allowances must be made for the lapse of time and the Tribunal cannot expect perfect recall when it is claimed events occurred in the remote past. Nor must the Tribunal dismiss world views and beliefs that are not culturally aligned with a Western perspective. The Tribunal accepts that persons in cults may inflict grievous and even fatal physical, spiritual, psychological and emotional harm on victims causing serious harm as defined by the Migration Act and that the threat of such harm constitutes serious harm under the Act.
From the extensive country information before it, and as submitted by the applicant, the Tribunal accepts that the Ogboni cult exists in Nigeria, even though an official at the Canadian High Commission in Abuja stated there is “very little concrete information or evidence available about the Ogboni society”, or information that is not speculative.[2] The Canadian official also noted that locally-held beliefs about the cult were strong and local sources were fearful of speaking openly about the Ogboni society, leading to extrapolation and inference based on available information.[3] In terms of its origins, the Canadian Refugee Board has observed that it is considered that the “traditional” Ogboni society is a “Nigerianised version of the Freemasons with some “traditional elements” and was founded by the educated elite Yoruba Christians in 1915 with voluntary membership for the purpose of networking.[4]
[2] ‘Nigeria: Ogboni society, including structure, rituals, ceremonies, and current status; membership and the consequences of refusing to join or trying to leave; relationship with police and judicial authorities (2017-April2019) [NGA106269.E], Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 20 June 2019, IRB – Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (Author): “Nigeria: Ogboni society, including structure, rituals, ceremonies, and current status; membership and the consequences of refusing to join or trying to leave; relationship with police and judicial authorities (2017-April 2019) [NGA106269.E]”, Document #2021322 - ecoi.net.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Nigeria: Ogboni society, including structure, rituals, ceremonies, and current status; membership and the consequences of refusing to join or trying to leave; relationship with police and judicial authorities (2017-April2019) [NGA106269.E], Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, 20 June 2019, IRB – Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (Author): “Nigeria: Ogboni society, including structure, rituals, ceremonies, and current status; membership and the consequences of refusing to join or trying to leave; relationship with police and judicial authorities (2017-April 2019) [NGA106269.E]”, Document #2021322 - ecoi.net.
Historically, it was considered that the Yoruba had their own political system of government in which the Ogboni society played a role like a secret service for the town, enforcing the law and bringing criminals to the Yoruba kings for judgement.[5] According to a source, however, the traditional Ogboni society today, has no power or influence and is stigmatized as a pagan remnant of the past.[6] Further:
In correspondence with the Research Directorate, a sociologist at the National Open University of Nigeria (NOUN), who has researched cults in Nigeria, indicated that the Ogboni society is “not widespread compared to other religious movements” and that “traditional belief systems, such as Ogbani” are giving way to other religions like Christianity and Islam…[7]
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
In terms of recruitment:
Sources indicate that membership to the Ogboni society is voluntary…or by invitation through contacts. The professor remarked that a person has to agree to join, and generally cannot be forced to do so, while noting, however, that “supernatural powers” may be used to try to “compel” a person to join…[8]
[8] Ibid.
According to a sociologist, people join voluntarily because:
they believe that the Ogbani belief system confers extraordinary abilities and powers from deities, especially when human sacrifices are alleged in the performance of rituals. However, those who are expected to retain membership as a family heritage may be coerced or forced when they reject it…[9]
[9] Ibid.
Regarding the consequences for refusing to join or leave the Ogboni society, the Tribunal notes:
According to the Canadian official, “it is assumed” by the sources that the mission consulted that the child of a member who refuses to join the Ogboni could encounter harassment by the society, “even to the point of death”, and that those who want to leave the group may face “tough consequences” or may be killed for revealing the group’s secrets to non-members, noting, however, that “[n]o recent information is available to support or refute such claims”…According to the Professor of Yoruba studies, “[i]f you already joined it is very hard to leave because it is breaking a vow. You already know the secrets of the cult”; “[i]t is very difficult to come out of the group because people are afraid of “supernaturally-inflicted severe consequences for leaving the group stemming from the “magical” or “spiritual” power of the group…[10]
[10] Ibid.
The Tribunal therefore accepts that the Ogboni society operate in Nigeria currently even if it is in decline, and that they also operate in other areas of Africa, although the extent of such is not well documented. The Tribunal also accepts that the group engages in human sacrifices and rituals involving human sacrifice and that if having had membership conferred by virtue or family or by voluntarily joining, it is very difficult to disengage without adverse consequences.
The Tribunal also accepts that the Ogboni society deals in the supernatural and can and does inflict serious harm by way of physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual harm and that it performs rituals, including human sacrifices. The Tribunal is therefore required to assess whether, having accepted this group operates as a type of secret society with its own internal rules and beliefs, the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm on return to Nigeria, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, because he will be targeted by the Ogboni group and anyone called [Ms A], in Imo state, Lagos or anywhere in Nigeria, and beyond into Africa.
The Tribunal has serious concerns about the applicant’s credibility relating to his involvement with the Ogboni and his claims that the Ogboni have targeted his family, killing his mother and three brothers and that through his claimed step-mother/step-aunt,
[Ms A], the Ogboni wishes to kill the applicant, and that she caused the applicant to have severe itching from which he recovered but his brother did not. One of the reasons the Tribunal is not convinced by the applicant’s account is that over time, from the time of application to the time of review, the applicant has enhanced and modified his claims, particularly after the Department rejected the applicant’s initial claims and the applicant’s pathway to remaining in Australia had narrowed significantly.
The applicant’s migration history
The applicant has claimed that he was not aware of being able to lodge a protection visa prior to 17 July 2019, when he first applied because he held a student visa and therefore was safe from the threat of the Ogboni clan. He did not know the system and had not considered that student visas were not permanent and would not confer on him a durable and lasting solution to his claimed difficulties with the Ogboni. As put to the applicant at hearing, he was able to navigate his way through the appeals process via the AAT to appeal his student visa cancellation in March 2017, some five plus years after his arrival in Australia. His migration history does not show that prior to the lodgement of the protection visa application, after the student visa cancellation was affirmed by the AAT, the applicant had uttered to the Department or anyone else that he had a well-founded fear of persecution and could not return to Nigeria.
The timing of the protection visa application after the AAT affirmed the student cancellation raises serious concerns for the Tribunal about the immediacy, gravity and credibility of the applicant’s claims that he fears persecution in Nigeria from the Ogboni and his putative step-mother/step-aunt. At this point in time the applicant’s means of remaining in Australia had narrowed significantly and a protection visa would have been one of his few options to remain in Australia.
The applicant has stated that along the process of his protection visa application he had had several lawyers who failed to represent his case adequately and in fact made errors. The applicant stated that now at the Tribunal he intended to speak for himself and put his claims forward. The Tribunal finds, however, that the applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation for why, claiming to fear for his life, he waited almost six years to lodge a protection application, pursuing instead a temporary student visa and the Tribunal rejects that this was due to being misadvised by anyone or that he was unaware of being able to lodge a protection visa. Prior to expending resources to appeal his student visa cancellation, for example, and in engaging with the AAT the Tribunal finds it implausible that he would not have become aware of the existence of a protection visa.
At any time during his struggles with his studies it was open to him to speak to student counsellors to tell them his claimed account of fleeing his home country because he would be otherwise killed, and that he needed to secure permanency in Australia to secure his safety and to seek their advice, or the advice of a migration agent, or indeed the Department, about his options. His pursuit of student visas and a remedy of his cancellation at the AAT, reflects that the applicant’s claims of fearing harm of being killed in Nigeria were not pressing and driven by a genuine subjective or objective fear of serious harm. Instead, the timing of his protection visa application is indicative of the applicant searching for a pathway to achieve a migration outcome to Australia.
The applicant enhancing his claims over the course of the application/review process without reasonable explanation

The Tribunal has carefully reviewed the applicant’s application, and the attached Statutory Declaration dated 5 August 2019 which both refer to the woman who it is claimed ruined his father’s marriage, [Ms A], who was a member of the Ogboni, who he claims killed his mother through a spiritual attack and is now after the applicant also. In his application he wrote that those involved have political and security influence without providing any precise detail about how they had such widespread influence. The applicant claims he was beaten, fell ill, and that his brother, [Mr B], was also suspected of having been killed by [Ms A], through a spiritual attack. The applicant specifies that the reason [Ms A] wanted to kill him was because he had called her a witch and a homewrecker.
At no point did the applicant mention at the time of application that he and his brother had witnessed a gruesome ritual involving the severed head, hand and legs of a deceased person, and that another reason (a significant reason) the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm is because he and his brother had been firsthand witnesses to a ritual performed by the secretive Ogboni society. Indeed, the Departmental decision also makes no mention of this sighting of the human sacrifice because the applicant had not made such a claim at the time of application.
It was only at hearing that this matter arose once the Department had refused his application. As if to reinforce the enhanced claims the applicant then provided the Tribunal with another signed statutory declaration dated 31 May 2025, after the hearing, confirming the claim that he had witnessed this gruesome sight with his brother.
The applicant has given general oral evidence that his previous lawyers did not set out his claims in a fulsome way. The Tribunal does not accept this explanation and finds that had the applicant been witness, together with his brother, to the sight of a body having severed parts that this would have been one of his central claims at the time of application given the gravity of the sighting and the terror it would have elicited in youths such as the applicant and his brother. The Tribunal finds that such a significant omission at the time of application occurred because this incident never happened. This is particularly so as the applicant’s evidence at hearing was general and did not provide specific information about precise locations, or any emotional or mental reactions the brothers might have had to the sight and how they realistically recovered to continue their day-to-day activities having witnessed such an event.
While stating in his statutory declaration of 28 April 2025, after the hearing, that other members of the Ogboni saw them and advanced towards them at the site of the ritual, the applicant has not been able to provide concrete information about who these “others” were, whether he knew them, and any other realistic detail about such people to convince the Tribunal that this event had actually happened. At hearing the Tribunal asked the applicant whether he knew those who had advanced towards him, but the applicant stated he did not, providing the explanation that [Ms A] recruited persons from other areas.
The Tribunal finds that this embellishment then gives leverage to the applicant’s further claims only put to the Tribunal at hearing, and not at the time of application, that it was the sighting of the ritual that inflamed [Ms A] to want to kill the applicant and his brother and family members because now the applicant had discovered the goings on of the Ogboni people. This was in addition to the applicant having disrespected [Ms A] by calling her a witch and a homewrecker at a family meeting that occurred after the sighting.
The Tribunal does not accept that anyone called [Ms A] ever conducted a human sacrifice with other members of Ogboni and does not accept that the visa applicant or any members of his family ever witnessed such events. It therefore rejects that the applicant was targeted by the Ogboni and [Ms A] for witnessing one of their rituals. The Tribunal finds that this additional claim that [Ms A] was looking for revenge was made at the hearing and in his statutory declaration of 28 April 2025, to strengthen his claims that
[Ms A] was intent on killing the applicant and members of his family because they could expose the Ogboni group and that the only way for redemption was for the applicant to be forcibly recruited to the group.
Lack of specific information and identity of [Ms A]
The Tribunal did not find that the applicant’s narrative at hearing was spontaneous or convincing. Apart from the characters in the applicant’s narrative being set out in general terms, such as those involved in the Ogboni rituals and group generally, the Tribunal found the applicant’s discussion of the central protagonist’s character, [Ms A], nebulous and one-dimensional.
At hearing the Tribunal attempted to elicit information about how the applicant came to be introduced to [Ms A] and how he came to know about her. The applicant could only say she was a neighbour, and the Tribunal had to press the applicant to ask whether she had children or whether prior to coming into her family via her father or uncle, she had known anything about this woman. The Tribunal finds that had [Ms A] ever existed and lived in his neighbourhood that he would have heard his family speaking about her and her membership of the Ogboni society and that given his Christian family’s beliefs, he would have been warned to stay away from her as she could be dangerous as she had supernatural powers. No such realistic detail was provided. It was only when she made it into the family via a male member that she suddenly became a malevolent figure who was intent on causing harm to her husband’s family members.
The account of how his father (or uncle) as a Christian came to be involved with [Ms A] is also vague. The applicant in his initial statutory declaration of 5 August 2019 intimated that his father was having an affair with this woman while still being married to his mother and that later he moved into an open relationship with [Ms A] and married her. The applicant has not been able to set out in a credible manner how he found out about the relationship and how the relationship developed apart from stating that the Church initially helped his mother and father reconcile but failed in their second bid. The applicant has not been able to provide any specific information, for example, about who precisely in the Church was involved in any reconciliation talks, and why on the second occasion they failed.
Even [Ms A]’s physical characteristics remain unclear to the Tribunal and the applicant did not attempt to delineate these in a way that would convince the Tribunal that she ever existed. Indeed, the Tribunal finds that [Ms A]’s character is a fiction devised by the applicant around which to build his claims that he fears for his life – claims which the Tribunal rejects.
Apart from such concerns, the Tribunal notes that significantly the applicant at hearing shifted his evidence to state that actually [Ms A] married the applicant’s uncle, leaving the Tribunal to query why he had specifically previously, and post-hearing, referred to his mother’s marriage breaking down due to his father’s marriage to [Ms A] in signed statutory declarations in which it was clear that it was an offence to provide a false statement.
The applicant at hearing stated that it was his previous lawyers who might not have understood him or might have misrepresented him. The Tribunal does not accept this as a reasonable explanation, however, because as put to him at hearing in his second statutory declaration dated 31 May 2023 when the applicant had the benefit of reflecting on his initial claims, he continued to perpetuate the claim that it was his father who had married
[Ms A]. Nor did he attempt to correct the record on that second signing of a statutory declaration.
Compounding the Tribunal’s credibility problems with the applicant’s changing narrative about key personalities central to his claims, is that the applicant provided the Tribunal with a signed statutory declaration after the hearing held on 28 February 2025, (the statutory declaration of 28 April 2025), after having told the Tribunal it was his uncle who was involved with [Ms A], again referring to his father’s new wife as [Ms A]. The applicant did not attempt in this recent statutory declaration to correct the record that he had intended to say that it was his uncle who had married [Ms A] (in 2010 as explained by him at hearing).

100. The Tribunal can accept that an applicant might have a lapse in memory and even if it accepts that the applicant has been given unhelpful advice by lawyers (which the Tribunal does not accept), this is such a fundamental discrepancy that the applicant has not been able to explain. Nor has the current representative proffered some explanation as to why the applicant keeps shifting his evidence in relation to the person who married the key figure in his claims, [Ms A]. The Tribunal cannot speculate as to why this inconsistency has arisen, but it leaves the Tribunal to have significant concerns about the applicant’s credibility about all the integers of his claims given the central character, being the person who had introduced [Ms A], who set off a string of serious harm including death to his family, has changed over time. The Tribunal places significant weight on this discrepancy around which all the applicant’s other claims pivot.
101. As a result the Tribunal does not accept that either an unidentified uncle of the applicant or his father ever married a person called [Ms A], or that [Ms A] exits or ever existed given that the applicant’s description of her was minimal and unconvincing and the Tribunal rejects this central plank of the applicant’s claims around which his claims have been built and also rejects that he was injured physically, spiritually, emotionally, or psychologically or otherwise by the Ogboni cult members and [Ms A], on several occasions in Imo state or Lagos or at any time or place.
102. For example, the applicant has not provided any tangible evidence such as a photograph or other probative information that would have convinced the Tribunal of her existence. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant stating that his brother could have provided evidence as a witness but is deceased. Nonetheless, in his evidence the applicant has spoken about village elders who were present at the claimed family meeting and the Tribunal can see no reason why such elders would not have been able to provide supporting contemporaneous evidence that the events claimed by the applicant actually did so.
103. It is also perplexing that the applicant claimed [Ms A] targeted her brother to kill him via poisoning as he had rashes and itching but that the applicant while suffering the same symptoms, evaded her wrath as the poisoning appeared not to have been effective on him. The Tribunal finds it incongruous that [Ms A] would focus on killing his brother when in fact it was the applicant who had publicly called her a witch and homewrecker.
Supporting documentation
104. The Tribunal has given consideration to the information submitted by the applicant post hearing but notes that none of the supporting letters are contemporaneous and the two affidavits attested to in the High Court were never presented to the Department as probative evidence of the claimed events in Nigeria, for example. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant’s aunt, [Ms H] and a neighbour, [Mr G], have had their sworn affidavits presented before the High Court, however, the Tribunal does not have any evidence that the High Court endorsed the statement of facts and without probative evidence, the Tribunal can only place limited weight on these. This is particularly so as [Mr G] refers to what the applicant has “reported” to him and does not even purport to have witnessed any of the events claimed by the applicant.
105. The letter by the applicant’s aunt, [Ms H], states that her sister (the applicant’s mother) died of a spiritual attack and poisoning by [Ms A]. Nonetheless, [Ms H] provides no detail about how and when the spiritual attack and poisoning occurred. Indeed, the applicant himself was unable to provide realistic detail about such a spiritual attack and was unable to provide spontaneous information about how the poisoning occurred and when and how he could surmise that it was [Ms A] that had undertaken the poisoning.
106. The Tribunal finds that these letters reflect that they were submitted for the purposes of enhancing the applicant’s claims rather than demonstrating first-hand knowledge of events that occurred in relation to the applicant’s family in Nigeria.
107. The letter by [Organisation], dated 24 February 2025 indicates that the applicant has sought their assistance in relation to mental health problems and indicates that the applicant has suffered stress due to the uncertainty of his migration status in Australia. It also repeats what the applicant has told him about one of his father’s wives’ threats to harm him through occult forces. The Tribunal is unable to place significant weight on such a letter when it does not indicate the therapy the applicant went through in terms of his fears in Nigeria and considers that the applicant’s overriding concern is his visa status.
108. The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant has sought counselling/psychotherapy in Australia. A medical practitioner has also referred to the applicant having ongoing depressed mood, anxiety and sleep problems since 2017 “Because of his visa problem”. Another report by [Dr F], dated 8 May 2025, refers to the “history presented to me by [the applicant]”, is that he is facing persecution and threats to his life by the Ogboni cult society. [Dr F] states that the applicant “told” him that [Ms A] had openly vowed to have him executed and that his condition has been compounded by the unfortunate loss of his mother and brothers.
109. [Dr F] then refers to the applicant’s symptoms and that these are consistent with the diagnosis for PTSD. Nonetheless, it is not clear that [Dr F] had conducted any psychometric testing and appears to have just arrived at this conclusion. It is also unclear as to what psychological/psychiatric training he has had. Further, it is not clear that [Dr F] critically looked at the applicant’s claims in depth to determine their veracity. Nor is it clear how long the applicant was receiving assistance from [Dr F], leading the Tribunal to have concerns that this report was obtained recently to strengthen his claims.
110. The more current medical report dated 15 May 2025 also makes no reference to the applicant suffering from psychological trauma in relation to having witnessed a gruesome scene in Nigeria and having been pursued and attacked by anyone in Nigeria for reasons of representing a threat of exposure of the operations of the Ogboni people or that he was pursued to join the Ogboni as a means of silencing him and making him complicit in their human sacrifices – something to which the applicant had a strong religious and ideological objection. Rather, the report refers to the applicant feeling stressed and having generalised body aches from moving boxes.
111. The Tribunal overall finds that the applicant has not provided convincing evidence that he is suffering from a Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder related to traumatic claimed events in Nigeria. The Tribunal would have expected that had the applicant narrated these events to a medical expert on his arrival in Australia in 2011 that he would have been placed on an intensive desensitisation program, including some kind of cognitive behavioural therapy or a lengthy therapy program after some rigorous psychometric testing. The Tribunal accepts the applicant is suffering from a stress condition and that it may manifest as PTSD, however, the evidence submitted is not convincing to indicate that it is due to the claimed events in Nigeria.
112. The Tribunal accepts that mental health programs in Nigeria are insufficient and that there is a deficiency of resources.[11] Nonetheless, a number of NGOs work to provide mental health services nation-wide.[12] In any event, there is little before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant on arrival in Australia in 2011 after having suffered such claimed serious harm in Nigeria, immediately pursued avenues for dealing with his symptoms given that had the applicant had rigorous treatment he would now be free, to some extent, of the most visceral of symptoms he claims to experience currently. This also undermines the Tribunal’s concerns that the applicant’s symptoms are not related to any events in Nigeria as the Tribunal has rejected that they ever occurred. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant could not receive some treatment in Nigeria, given the Department of Foreign Affairs also notes there are psychiatric hospitals in some parts of Nigeria.[13]
[11] Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Nigeria 3 December 2020, DFAT Country Inormation Report - Nigeria. [at 2.24].
[12] Ibid [at 2.27].
[13] Ibid.
113. The Tribunal has also had regard to the death certificate for the applicant’s mother stating that she died of peritonitis. This is a condition that starts in the abdomen with peritonitis referring to what happens when the thin layer of tissue inside the abdomen becomes inflamed and usually happens due to an infection from bacteria or fungi.[14] In a society where witchcraft is readily accepted as a way of inflicting harm on others the Tribunal queries why the doctor would not have specifically put down that the peritonitis was a secondary cause of a spiritual attack. This is particularly so as the Tribunal has rejected that the Ogboni or
[Ms A] ever targeted the family for any reason.
[14] Peritonitis - Symptoms and causes - Mayo Clinic.
114. The Tribunal also had regard to the death certificate relating to the applicant’s brother [Mr B]’s death due to “poisoning” with a secondary cause of death being pruritus. The death certificate makes no mention of the applicant having deliberately been poisoned by anyone and does not refer to a spiritual attack in a manner the Tribunal would have expected it to.
115. Furthermore, the Tribunal did not find the applicant’s evidence relating to the so-called poisoning of his brother cogent. He had to be prompted significantly to give details as to how his brother could have been intentionally poisoned, initially relating that food stuffs could have been purchased at a grocery store to then state that foods could also be obtained from people’s homes, but provided no specific information about where the poison came from and how it might have been inserted into the applicant’s food to cause pruritus and ultimately death.
116. The applicant gave no realistic account around the death of his brother and was not able to recount anything about his treatment and his ultimate decline, only stating he was treated for 8 months. The Tribunal is not able to determine on the face of it whether the death certificate for [Mr B] is a genuine document or not and, in the circumstances, accepts that it is. Nonetheless, accepting it is a genuine document and accepting that [Mr B] died by poisoning, the Tribunal does not accept that the death was precipitated by the Ogboni cult, or anyone called [Ms A], and the Tribunal rejects that in the absence of any probative material the death was caused by this cult or a claimed wife of the applicant’s father or uncle.
117. The death certificate for another of the applicant’s brother, [Mr E], is listed as gunshot injuries. The applicant has not been able, however, to provide any contemporaneous and supportive information from the police, for example, or the village elders or anyone else that the shooting was undertaken by someone of the Ogboni cult or someone called [Ms A]. While the Tribunal accepts that [Mr E] died as a result of a gunshot wound there is limited information about the context in which the shooting occurred, and the Tribunal rejects that it was perpetrated by the Ogboni group, or anyone related to it such as [Ms A] and her associates.

118. The Tribunal has also had regard to the hospital report regarding the death of the applicant’s other brother, [Mr C] and accepts that he was killed by multiple machete cuts to the head. Nonetheless, without context and without other material that would link this death to the death of the applicant’s mother and other two brothers, the Tribunal does not accept [Mr C]’s death was a result of any doing by the Ogboni society or [Ms A] or her affilates.
119. The Tribunal has had regard to the photographic material submitted as evidence that the applicant has received a rather large [scar], which he claims was caused by a beating by members of the Ogboni. The Tribunal is not in a position to determine the cause of such a scar by looking at a grainy photograph. A medical practitioner may be able to offer an opinion on the cause and when the injury might have happened. As it is, the Tribunal cannot rely on this photograph of the applicant’s injury as a direct result of an assault by Ogboni members, particularly as it has rejected that the applicant was ever targeted by the Ogboni cult or [Ms A] because she does not exit.
120. It follows therefore, that the Tribunal rejects the applicant’s other claims:
·he and his brother, [Mr B], ever witnessed in 1997 or at any time any ritual involving body parts or anything else performed by any persons of the Ogboni society and involving anyone called [Ms A].
·that a person named [Ms A] ever existed.
·neither his father or his uncle married anyone called [Ms A].
·a family meeting occurred in which [Ms A] outed herself as an occultist.
·That the applicant ever called a person called [Ms A] a witch and homewrecker, at a family meeting since it is not even clear which home she is claimed to have wrecked.
·That the Ogboni have security and political connections that could also harm the applicant.
·That [Ms A] threatened the applicant to join Ogboni as a means of keeping him inhouse and quiet about his observations of the rituals and that she told him that this was the only way he could survive.
·the applicant was poisoned (a spiritual attack) by anyone called [Ms A], or that she caused the applicant to have itches and rashes.
·his brother, [Mr B] died from a spiritual attack specifically caused by a person called [Ms A].
·the applicant’s mother died from a spiritual attack by way of poisoning caused by the Ogboni cult and [Ms A].
·his other brother, [Mr E], was shot by the Ogboni people.
·another brother, [Mr C], was killed by the Ogboni people.
·the applicant’s family is perceived as a threat to the state order by anyone.
·only the rich can access healthcare in Nigeria.
·[Ms A] can corrupt the security forces to kidnap, kill or threaten the applicant.

Returnee from the West
121. The representative has argued that there is a real chance the applicant could be harmed on account of being a returnee from the West. No such evidence has been provided to support such a contention. In contrast, the latest Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Report on Nigeria, dated 3 December 2020 states at 5.37 that Article 41(1) of the Constitution states that no citizen shall be expelled from Nigeria or refused entry or exit from the country, but the State may impose restrictions on any person reasonably suspected of having committed a criminal offence.[15] Further, [at 5.41]:
Thousands of Nigerians enter and leave the country every day. According to the National Commission for Refugees, Migrants and Internally Displaced Persons, Nigeria received a total of 11,494 returnees in 2018, of which 10,180 were from Libya. There is no evidence of any stigma attaching to such returnees.[16]

122. In addition, at 5.42:
Nigerian nationals may return voluntarily to any region of Nigeria at any time by way of the Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme, run by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and co-funded by the European Refugee Fund. The Programme provides assistance with obtaining travel documents, booking flights, and organising re-integration assistance in Nigeria, and is open to those awaiting an asylum decision or the outcome of an appeal, as well as failed asylum seekers. Upon arrival, returnees can receive immediate assistance such as food, medical screening, overnight accommodation and money (up to 100 Euros) for basic needs and transportation. Returnees can also receive in-kind re-integration assistance and skills training.
5.43 The government allocated 100 billion naira (around AUD400 million) in its 2019 Budget to projects that included re-integration efforts for returnees. Some states also offer monthly stipends for returnees. In August 2019, the government established the Ministry of Humanitarian Affairs, Disaster Management and Social Development, which aims to better coordinate rehabilitation and re-integration efforts.[17]
[15] Australian Government, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Nigeria 3 December 2020, DFAT Country Inormation Report - Nigeria.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Ibid.

121. The Tribunal considers that the applicant would be returning after a lengthy period in Australia from a relatively wealthy country, but the Tribunal has limited information that persons returning from similar countries such as the United States or European countries are targeted on account of their perceived wealth.
Christians in Imo state
123. The country information accessed by the Tribunal indicates that Christians make up 95 per cent of the Imo population and that Muslims are mostly visitors or non-indigen.[18] Given the applicant is part of a majority the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will be persecuted on return to Nigeria on account of his religion.
No family in Nigeria
124. The Tribunal can accept that the applicant will have little to no immediate family on return to Nigeria. Nonetheless, the applicant is now married and has his own nuclear family and also may have options in terms of living in [Country] or Australia with his wife.
Economic issues
125. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant would be returning to Nigeria after a long absence and that he may experience some initial difficulty in finding work. Given he has been an understudy to [an occupation 1] for 15 years in Nigeria and given that the applicant has adapted well in the Australian environment by finding work, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant on return to Nigeria would not experience serious harm in that he would not be able to make a living of any kind such that he would be prevented from subsisting.
Conclusion re s.36(2)(a)
126. 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).
[18] ‘Imo State Nigeria, good loving people’, Local Guides Connect, Imo state Nigeria, good loving people. - Google Maps contribution stories - Local Guides Connect and Nairaland Forum, Population Statistics Of Christians & Muslims In Northern Nigeria - Politics (3) - Nigeria.
Does the applicant satisfy the complementary protection criterion for protection?
127. 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).
128. The Tribunal has considered whether it has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal has had regards to the applicant’s claims, as above, regarding complementary protection.
129. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively but has found that there is not a real chance that he would face persecution for any reason under s.5(J). The Tribunal has rejected that the applicant is a target of the Ogboni people or that anyone called [Ms A] or anyone else wants to execute the applicant or has executed his family members for any reason. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will be arbitrarily deprived of his life by the Ogboni,
[Ms A] or any other agents of the state or other persons; or that the death penalty will be carried out on him; or that he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or that he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment by state or non-state actors.
130. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) and the applicant therefore cannot meet cl.36(2).

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 the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION

132. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
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.
…