1612637 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a national of India. The applicant claimed she feared harm from Hindu hardliners and her husband's family due to her adherence to the Dera Sacha Sauda (DSS) faith and her separation from her husband. She contended that the authorities would not protect her and that she could not relocate within India to avoid the feared harm. The case was heard by Senior Member Kate Millar.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion or membership of a particular social group, and whether she would suffer significant harm if returned to India. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider if her adherence to the DSS faith placed her at risk from Hindu hardliners, if her separation from her husband and subsequent divorce exposed her to harm from his family, and if effective protection measures were available to her in India. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "significant harm" and the circumstances under which a person might be taken not to face a real risk of such harm, including the availability of relocation and state protection.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the Migration Act 1958, including the definitions of well-founded fear of persecution, significant harm, and effective protection measures. It noted that the applicant had provided a divorce order and detailed an incident where she was pushed from a motorcycle in India, which she attributed to her husband's family. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. The decision affirmed the previous refusal to grant the visa.