1612641 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of India, sought review of a decision to refuse him a protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared persecution in India due to threats from his ex-wife's family and members of the Dera Sauda Sirsa (DSS) religious sect, as well as from members of the Hindu community. He alleged these threats stemmed from his separation from his wife, who he claimed was a DSS follower, and his refusal to convert to the DSS religion.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the refugee criterion) or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing the credibility of his claims of past and future harm, considering relevant country information and policy guidelines, and determining if there were substantial grounds for believing he faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal to India.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence regarding his marriage, separation, and alleged threats. It found the applicant's claims to be vague and inconsistent, particularly concerning his ex-wife's alleged affiliation with the DSS and the nature of the threats he claimed to have received. The Tribunal noted the applicant's delayed claim for protection, his prior returns to India despite alleged fears, and his failure to provide independent evidence supporting his claims. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or that there were substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm if returned to India.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy either the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion.