1614049 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an Indian national who claimed to fear harm from Hindu extremists due to his conversion to Christianity. The applicant alleged he had been threatened with death, hunted by members of the RSS, and assaulted at festivals. The decision under review affirmed the refusal to grant the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee or entitled to complementary protection. This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims of past harm and his fear of future persecution, and to determine if these claims established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason or a real risk of significant harm if returned to India.

The Tribunal found significant credibility concerns with the applicant's evidence. It noted inconsistencies and changes in his account of past harm, including discrepancies between his statement and oral evidence regarding threats of death and assaults. The Tribunal also identified contradictions in his explanations for delays in leaving India, particularly concerning his travel to and reasons for returning from a previous country of residence. Applying the principles that the onus is on the applicant to establish their claims and that the Tribunal is not required to accept allegations uncritically, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory elements required for the grant of a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.