1517936 (Refugee)

The Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa, who claimed to have fled Nepal due to threats from the Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (JTMM). The applicant, a Pahade woman with a government job, alleged she was targeted for her ethnicity and political affiliation with the Nepali Congress Party, facing demands for money, threats of kidnapping, and pressure to resign. She claimed these threats extended to her family and that authorities were unwilling or unable to provide protection due to fear of the JTMM.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant would face a real chance of persecution on the basis of her ethnicity or political opinion, or a real risk of significant harm, if returned to Nepal, and whether it was reasonable for her to live in Kathmandu, where she claimed to have resided previously without issue, rather than in the Tarai region where she alleged the threats originated. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against independent country information regarding the political and security situation in Nepal, particularly in the Tarai region.

The Tribunal reasoned that while there was evidence of ongoing political violence and tensions in the Tarai region, particularly following the 2015 constitution, which could place individuals of Pahade ethnicity and those associated with the Nepali Congress at risk of serious harm in that specific area, it was not satisfied that the applicant would face a real chance of persecution in Kathmandu. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had previously lived in Kathmandu and her husband and children continued to reside there without incident. It concluded that, based on the available information, it was reasonable for the applicant to live and remain in Kathmandu, where she would not face a real chance of persecution. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claims of financial hardship and unemployment but found these did not constitute "significant harm" for the purposes of complementary protection.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would face a real chance of persecution or significant harm in Kathmandu, and it deemed it reasonable for her to reside there upon return to Nepal.