1516634 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by a woman from Nepal against the Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of her protection visa. The applicant claimed she could not return to Nepal due to fear of social stigma and mistreatment as an unmarried woman who had lived with a man out of wedlock. She also referenced a past incident involving a female revolutionary group disrupting a cultural event she participated in, during which she alleged police provided no protection and the district court refused to hear her case.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group, or alternatively, whether she would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia, thereby engaging Australia's protection obligations under the complementary protection criterion. The court was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of the relevant provisions of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), including definitions of "significant harm," "particular social group," and "well-founded fear of persecution," as well as Ministerial Directions and country information.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding her past experiences and her current fear of social stigma in Nepal due to her de facto relationship. It also took into account the incident involving the revolutionary group, noting the lack of police protection and the court's refusal to hear the case. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, nor did she meet the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal's reasoning, as reflected in the decision, was that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group, nor had she demonstrated a real risk of suffering significant harm upon return to Nepal.

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