1501367 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection (Class XA) visa by a woman from Nepal. The applicant claimed to fear harm from Maoists due to her family's support for the Rastriya Prajatantra Party, and later expanded her claims to include fear of harm from her husband and persecution as a member of the particular social group of single Nepalese women. The Refugee Review Tribunal had previously found the applicant not to be a witness of truth in relation to her initial claims. The current decision was made by a member of the Tribunal, Andrew Mullin.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under section 36(2) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to assess whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or whether she would suffer significant harm if returned to Nepal. The Tribunal was also required to consider relevant policy guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's credibility and the lack of credible evidence supporting her claims. It noted the previous adverse credibility finding and found that the applicant had not provided sufficient credible evidence to establish a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason. The Tribunal specifically addressed the applicant's claims regarding her husband and her membership in a particular social group, finding them not to be established on the evidence. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's assertion that she would not be safe in India, but this did not alter the assessment of her claims concerning Nepal.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa, finding that she did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act.