1613654 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Nepal. The applicant claimed to have left Nepal due to threats and the risk of harm stemming from his father's work as a social worker and his perceived political affiliations. The applicant alleged that his father had been kidnapped by a rival political group and that he himself had received death threats. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine the credibility of the applicant's claims and whether, on the accepted claims, the criteria for the grant of a protection visa were fulfilled.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee under section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to a well-founded fear of persecution, or alternatively, whether he met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which requires substantial grounds for believing that removal from Australia would result in a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also considered the relevance of country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) regarding the political situation in Nepal, including the history of civil war, the current political stability, and the risks faced by political opponents.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the credibility of the applicant's claims in light of the available country information. It noted that while the applicant claimed threats and his father's kidnapping, the DFAT report indicated that Nepal had enjoyed several years of political stability since the end of the civil war in 2006, and that political opponents of Maoists generally did not face violence unless they participated in violent demonstrations. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Nepal. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.