1604017 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Nepal, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, including the complementary protection criterion, based on his claims of fearing persecution due to his monarchist political opinion and alleged death threats from Maoists, as well as claims of mental torture.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or alternatively, whether he met the complementary protection criterion by demonstrating a real risk of significant harm if returned to Nepal. A key issue was the applicant's failure to attend a scheduled hearing before the Tribunal and to provide further evidence or explanation for his non-attendance, despite multiple invitations and reminders.

The Tribunal Member, Mila Foster, considered the applicant's claims as outlined in his protection visa application and the delegate's decision. The Tribunal had previously invited the applicant to provide additional evidence and to attend a hearing, but he failed to respond to these communications. Despite SMS reminders failing to deliver, the Tribunal Member was satisfied that the applicant had been properly invited to the hearing via email and had not provided any evidence of email delivery failure. Given the applicant's non-attendance and lack of response, the Tribunal Member proceeded to make a decision pursuant to s.426A of the Migration Act 1958, without further action to enable the applicant to appear. The Tribunal Member noted that the applicant had not provided any further claims or evidence beyond his initial application and the delegate's decision record.

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