1500070 (Refugee)

The applicant, who arrived in Australia in August 2009, sought a Protection visa. Her initial application was refused in February 2011, and this decision was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal on 8 June 2011. A subsequent application was lodged in May 2014, permitted due to Federal Court precedent allowing further applications under the complementary protection criterion if the initial application predated the commencement of that criterion. The current matter before the Tribunal concerned only the complementary protection criterion, as the Refugee Convention aspect of the applicant's claims had already been determined.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were the credibility of the applicant's claims and whether, based on those accepted claims, the criteria for complementary protection were met. The applicant claimed to be a monarchist and a member of the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP) in Nepal, alleging she had been threatened and targeted by Maoists due to her political involvement, leading her to flee Nepal. She expressed fear of rape, torture, or murder upon return, asserting that authorities would be unable to protect her due to corruption and incapacity. The applicant did not attend an interview with a delegate of the Minister and did not provide a further statement as indicated.

The Tribunal considered the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 and Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, it examined section 36(2)(aa), the complementary protection criterion, which requires substantial grounds for believing that removal would result in a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also had regard to relevant Ministerial Directions and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade country information. Despite the applicant's claims of political affiliation and past kidnapping by Maoists, the Tribunal found no suggestion that the applicant satisfied the criteria as a family member of a primary visa holder.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.