1517190 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a woman from Nepal. The applicant claimed she feared harm if returned to Nepal due to her marriage to a Christian man, a union her Hindu family and society had rejected, leading to her being declared dead and disowned. The dispute centred on whether she met the criteria for a Protection visa, including the possibility of complementary protection. The decision was made by the Refugee Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, specifically by establishing a well-founded fear of persecution as a member of a particular social group, and alternatively, whether she qualified for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm if removed from Australia. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant policy guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence, noting various inconsistencies. It found that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a). Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.