1601379 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indian national, sought review of a decision not to grant him a Protection visa. He claimed to fear harm in India from neighbours and/or a property dealer due to a land dispute, alleging threats of violence and corruption of local authorities. Alternatively, he presented a claim based on a property transaction where a dealer allegedly failed to register a sale deed and subsequently attacked his family. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether the applicant had established that he met the criteria for a Protection visa, specifically under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility and substance of the applicant's claims of fear of harm in India, considering the evidence presented and the applicant's failure to attend a scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's visa application form and his father's First Information Report (FIR) to the police. However, the Tribunal noted that it was unable to make a favourable decision based on the material alone. Consequently, the applicant was invited to attend a hearing to provide oral evidence and present arguments. The applicant failed to attend this hearing and did not provide any reason for his absence or seek a postponement. In accordance with section 426A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision on the review without further action to enable the applicant to appear. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.