1601219 (Refugee)

The applicant, a male national of Nepal, sought a protection visa in Australia. He claimed to be at risk of harm in Nepal due to his father's role as a police officer and his own alleged involvement in passing information about a criminal gang, the Janatantrik Terai Mukti Morcha (JTMM), to his father. The applicant stated that his father had sent him to Australia for safety, and that the criminals had continued to search for him, resulting in a friend being stabbed. Newspaper articles were provided as evidence, reporting threats against the applicant and his father by the JTMM.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason or if he would suffer significant harm if returned to Nepal, thereby engaging Australia's complementary protection obligations. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims, the nature of the threats he faced, and the availability of protection within Nepal.

The court found that the applicant's claims lacked credibility, describing them as vague and implausible. While acknowledging the applicant's stated fear and the newspaper reports of threats, the court did not find that these established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. Furthermore, the court considered whether the applicant would suffer significant harm under the complementary protection provisions, but ultimately concluded that the evidence did not support such a finding. The court noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.