1517653 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an appeal by Mr A, a citizen of Nepal, who sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. Mr A claimed he feared harm from his former partner's relatives in Nepal, alleging they intended to kill him due to his departure from Nepal without his partner or assisting her to join him. The delegate had previously found his claims to be confused, inconsistent, and unsupported by evidence.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr A met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if Mr A had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, as defined by Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention, or if he met the complementary protection criteria under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This required assessing the credibility of Mr A's claims and the consistency of his evidence.

The Tribunal, presided over by Member Luke Hardy, found Mr A to be an unreliable witness. His evidence was characterised as vague, confused, and contradictory regarding the nature and cessation of his relationship with Ms A, the reasons for his alleged fear, and the extent of his contact with her family. For instance, he provided inconsistent accounts of why his relationship with Ms A ended and whether he had discussed marriage with her siblings. Furthermore, Mr A failed to produce any evidence of his past contact with Ms A, including Viber communications, despite the Tribunal pointing out the potential for such data to be retained. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr A had a real chance of Convention-related persecution in Nepal.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr A a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act.