1601864 (Refugee)

The applicant, Ms A, sought a protection visa, claiming she could not return to Nepal due to her status as a divorced woman who had borne two children out of wedlock. She asserted membership in particular social groups, including "single mothers in Nepal," "divorced women in Nepal," and "mothers of illegitimate children in Nepal," arguing that the resulting scandal would impede her ability to raise and protect her children. The decision under review was made by the Refugee Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Ms A qualified for a protection visa as a refugee, or alternatively, on complementary protection grounds. This required determining if she had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if there were substantial grounds for believing she would suffer significant harm upon removal from Australia.

The Tribunal considered Ms A's claims in light of policy guidelines and country information. It noted inconsistencies in her evidence regarding her relationship with Mr D, who she claimed provided support for her and their children. While she initially presented herself to the Department as estranged from Mr D and abandoned due to her pregnancies, she later emphasised their cohabitation and strong relationship to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was not satisfied that Ms A resolved this discrepancy, finding she had embellished her evidence about Mr D to the Department. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Ms A did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or on complementary protection grounds, and affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.