1517140 (Refugee)

The applicant, a divorced woman from Nepal, sought a protection visa in Australia. She claimed to fear persecution due to her status as a divorced woman and alleged past verbal and physical abuse from her deceased husband. The dispute concerned whether she met the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically under sections 36(2)(a) (well-founded fear of persecution) and 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection). The matter was before the Tribunal, presided over by Member Meena Sripathy.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of membership of a particular social group, namely divorced women in Nepal. Additionally, it had to consider whether, in the absence of meeting the refugee criterion, there were substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. This involved assessing whether verbal abuse, mental torture, or social stigma constituted "significant harm" under the Act, and whether any such risk was faced generally by the population of Nepal or specifically by her.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered independent country information regarding social attitudes towards divorced women in Nepal, acknowledging existing stigma but also noting advocacy for single women's rights and positive legal developments. It found the applicant's family in Nepal to be generally supportive and noted her sister's independent life with her daughters as evidence that single women could live without suffering harm on account of their gender or status. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's fear of verbal taunts or psychological anguish did not amount to "significant harm" for the purposes of the complementary protection criterion. Furthermore, it found that while general insecurity existed in Nepal due to poverty and a weak rule of law, the applicant's circumstances and available family support meant that any risk from generalised violence was not faced by her personally.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that she did not satisfy the criteria under either section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).