1610293 (Refugee)

This matter concerned a protection visa application by a Nepalese man. The applicant claimed he feared persecution and torture if returned to Nepal due to inter-ethnic conflict between Madhesi and Pahadi groups in the Terai region. He alleged his family home had been attacked and that he was physically disabled, preventing him from defending himself or engaging in employment. The applicant also raised concerns about his eyesight and the potential disapproval of his family. The decision under review was made by the Refugee Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa), which concerns complementary protection due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal. The court also considered the applicant's claims regarding his health and family circumstances in the context of these provisions.

The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision not to grant the protection visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence was inconsistent and that he had delayed in applying for protection. Crucially, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence of a mental health condition or that the applicant would suffer significant harm upon return to Nepal, nor that he could not reasonably relocate within Nepal to avoid any general risk. The court noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for being a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.

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