1517181 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against a decision of the Refugee Tribunal to refuse his application for a protection visa. The applicant, a citizen of Nepal, claimed he was a victim of persecution by Maoists who demanded a donation from him shortly after he opened a business. He alleged that he went into hiding and received a threatening letter from the Maoists, and that he could not report the matter to the police due to their inability to provide protection in Nepal. The applicant also claimed his life was in danger in Nepal, exacerbated by recent earthquakes.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically political opinion, and whether he could safely relocate to India. The court also considered the interpretation of the term "right" in section 36(3) of the Act, as clarified by the Full Federal Court in *MIMAC v SZRHU* [2013] FCAFC 91, in the context of whether the applicant had a lawful liberty or privilege to enter and reside in a third country and had taken all possible steps to avail himself of that right.

The court applied the principles established in *MIMAC v SZRHU*, which held that the term "right" in section 36(3) should be interpreted broadly to include liberties or privileges lawfully given, not just legally enforceable rights. The court considered whether the applicant had a lawful liberty to enter and reside in India and whether he had taken all reasonable steps to avail himself of this potential relocation. The court also took into account the Ministerial Direction No. 56, which mandates consideration of relevant policy guidelines and country information assessments.

The court found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant could safely relocate to India, and therefore, the refusal of the protection visa was affirmed.