1509126 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a protection visa by individuals from India. The applicants claimed they would face persecution due to an intercaste marriage, fearing honour killing by their families. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicants' fear of harm constituted a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically membership of a particular social group, and whether they could reasonably relocate within India to avoid such harm.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicants' fear of honour killing due to their intercaste marriage met the threshold for a well-founded fear of persecution under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether the risk of harm was real and significant, and whether the applicants belonged to a particular social group as defined by the Refugee Convention. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider whether internal relocation within India was a viable and reasonable option for the applicants to escape the feared harm.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the established principles for assessing protection claims, including the 'real chance of significant harm' test. It acknowledged the serious nature of honour killings in some parts of India but found that the evidence did not establish a real chance of significant harm to the applicants. The Tribunal concluded that the harm, if it were to occur, was localised and that the applicants had the capacity to relocate to a different region within India where they would not face such a threat. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicants did not meet the criteria for a protection visa.