1500071 (Refugee)

The applicant, who claimed to be a Nepali national named [applicant’s name], sought a protection visa in Australia. His initial application was refused in November 2010, a decision affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal and upheld on judicial review by both the Federal Magistrates Court and the Full Federal Court. The current application was lodged in May 2014, permitted under a specific provision allowing a further application for complementary protection where the initial application predated the commencement of that criterion. Consequently, the matter before the Tribunal concerned only the complementary protection criterion, as the Refugee Convention aspect of his claims had already been determined.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which requires the Minister to be satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant's removal from Australia, there is a real risk of suffering significant harm. This involved assessing the applicant's claims of fear of persecution by Maoists in Nepal due to his monarchist political views and his membership in the Rastriya Prajatantra Party (RPP), particularly in light of his brother's murder by Maoists for opposing them. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's fear of detention and torture upon return to Nepal for using a fraudulent passport.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence regarding his political affiliations and the persecution of monarchists in Nepal, including the brutal murder of his brother. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. The decision notes that there was no suggestion the applicant qualified as a family member of someone who met the protection criteria. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the requirements of section 36(2) of the Act.

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