1614060 (Refugee)

The applicants, who claimed to be nationals of India, sought review of a decision to refuse them protection visas. The first applicant alleged that his father had converted between Hinduism and Christianity multiple times, leading to threats and attacks on both himself and his father by Hindu religious and political groups, culminating in his father's death. The applicants contended they were Christians and feared persecution if returned to India.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the first applicant met the definition of a refugee under section 5H(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act), or alternatively, whether either applicant qualified for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved assessing the credibility of the first applicant's claims, the existence of a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, and the likelihood of suffering significant harm upon removal to India.

The Tribunal found that the onus was on the applicants to establish their claims with sufficient detail and evidence, and that it was not required to make their case for them or accept allegations uncritically. The Tribunal identified concerns and inconsistencies in the first applicant's evidence, particularly regarding the timeline of events leading to the alleged attacks and his father's death, which undermined his credibility. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the first applicant had not satisfied the Tribunal that he met the criteria for a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review in respect of both applicants. It specifically found that the second applicant did not satisfy section 36(2) of the Act, and therefore, no protection visas were to be granted.