1512986 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a female applicant from Nepal. The applicant claimed she feared persecution due to an inter-caste marriage, threats from her husband's family including an attempted kidnapping, and domestic violence from her husband. The dispute before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either on the basis of a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason or under the complementary protection criterion due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant's removal from Australia, there was a real risk she would suffer significant harm. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims and the evidence presented.

The Tribunal found serious doubts regarding the genuineness of the applicant's marriage certificate and, consequently, did not accept that her in-laws disapproved of the marriage, that she was outcast or untouchable, or that they had threatened or attempted to kidnap her. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had not raised these claims in any prior applications, including a temporary visa application where she was found to have provided false documents, or in a ministerial intervention request. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had fabricated her protection claims and did not present as a credible witness. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm or significant harm upon return to Nepal, either for a Convention reason or under the complementary protection criterion.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa, finding that she did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) (refugee criterion) or section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection criterion) of the Act.