1609507 (Refugee)

The applicant, a former Nepali Congress student leader, sought a protection visa, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution by Maoists in Nepal. The dispute before the Tribunal concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or under complementary protection provisions. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims of threats to his life and the feasibility of internal relocation within Nepal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, based on a well-founded fear of persecution due to his political opinion, and if not, whether he met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Nepal. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant was a member of the same family unit as a person who met these criteria.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It found that the applicant had not established that he was a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa. The Tribunal's reasoning, while not explicitly detailed regarding the refugee or complementary protection claims, concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act. The applicant's written application indicated he had received death threats from the Maoist party due to his political affiliation and had reported these threats to the police, but also stated that relocation within Nepal was not safe due to the pervasive influence of Maoist rebels.