1612138 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indian national, sought review of a decision to refuse him and his family protection visas. The applicant claimed he feared persecution in India due to his alleged affiliation with the Dera Sacha Sauda (DSS) religious group, accusations of destroying the Sikh holy book, and being named in the media for sending money to the DSS. A new claim was also raised concerning the distress and potential sexual assault of his daughter if she were returned to India. The matter was heard by the Migration Review Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either under the refugee provisions or Australia's complementary protection obligations. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding his association with the DSS, the accusations against him and his father, and the alleged media attention. It also needed to consider the new claim regarding the daughter's fear of returning to India and the risk of sexual assault.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding his association with the DSS and the accusations against him to be vague, inconsistent, and lacking credibility. It noted that police investigations had reportedly ruled out the involvement of DSS followers in the incidents of religious unrest. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence linking the applicant to a specific individual arrested in relation to these events or to media reports. Consequently, the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant or his father were followers of the DSS or had been accused of destroying the Sikh holy book or sending money to the DSS. Regarding the daughter's claim, the Tribunal accepted that she would experience distress upon returning to India but found the fear of sexual assault to be speculative and not supported by evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had manufactured his claims and that there were no substantial grounds to believe he, his wife, or daughter faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to India.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958.