1610987 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indian national, sought a protection visa in Australia. The dispute arose from the applicant's claim that he feared harm upon return to India due to his father's involvement in a Ponzi scheme, which had led to the seizure of his father's company and attacks on his family's property. The applicant had arrived in Australia in 2009, overstayed his student visa from March 2011, and only applied for a protection visa in March 2016. The decision under review was made by Nora Lamont, a member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as required by section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or whether he met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) by facing a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The Tribunal was also required to consider the applicant's delay in lodging his protection visa application and any evidence of effective protection measures available in India.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the relevant policy guidelines and country information. It noted the significant delay in the application and found credibility issues with the applicant's account, particularly regarding his activities after his studies ceased. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "significant harm" and the circumstances under which a person might not face a real risk of such harm, including the availability of relocation or state protection. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution and affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visa.