1614035 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by an Indian national. The applicant claimed to fear harm in India due to his political opinion. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of his political opinion, or alternatively, whether he qualified for complementary protection.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the requirements of section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). A key issue was the applicant's failure to attend a scheduled hearing before the Tribunal, despite receiving notice and reminders. The Tribunal also noted the applicant had not attended a Department interview or responded to the Tribunal's invitation to present oral evidence. The Tribunal applied section 426A of the Act, which permits a decision to be made without further action to enable an applicant to appear if they fail to attend a hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy it that he belonged to a political organisation in India, had worked for such an organisation, or that he could not safely relocate within India. The Tribunal reiterated that an applicant's mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or that it is well-founded, and that allegations are not to be accepted uncritically, referencing *Randhawa v MIEA* (1994) 52 FCR 437. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria for protection based on political opinion, nor did he satisfy the complementary protection criteria under section 36(2)(aa) or (c) of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.