1608094 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision by the Refugee Tribunal to affirm the refusal of her protection visa. The applicant, a business person from Nepal, claimed she feared persecution from Maoists due to her inability to make demanded donations, the disappearance of her husband, and her fear of being "disappeared" herself. She also cited the destruction of her home by an earthquake and her lack of income as reasons for not returning.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether she was a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution based on her membership in a particular social group, namely business persons targeted by Maoists. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which requires a substantial ground for believing that removal would result in a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims and evidence, including her written application, interview with the Minister's delegate, and oral evidence at the hearing. It noted that the applicant's migration agent had assisted with the application. The Tribunal applied Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, and Complementary Protection Guidelines. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act.

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