1614678 (Refugee)

The applicants, a married couple from India, sought protection visas. The first applicant claimed she had previously supported the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) party in Punjab through monetary donations. She alleged that after witnessing corruption and ceasing her donations, she and her family faced harassment and threats from SAD leaders, leading her to fear for their safety upon return to India. The second applicant applied as a member of the same family unit. The case was heard by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the first applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, thereby satisfying the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, and alternatively, whether there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to India, satisfying the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the first applicant's claims, considering the evidence presented, relevant country information regarding the political landscape in Punjab, and the applicants' delay in raising certain claims.

The Tribunal found the first applicant's central claims regarding her support for the SAD, cessation of donations, and subsequent harassment to be unconvincing. Significant inconsistencies were identified in her evidence concerning the timing and nature of her donations, her reasons for ceasing them, and the specific incidents of harassment. The Tribunal noted that country information indicated a significant decline in the SAD's political power in Punjab since 2017, which undermined the applicant's assertion that the party remained a dominant force capable of targeting her with impunity. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the applicant's failure to raise her fears of harm when seeking ministerial intervention in 2015, despite her explanation for this omission, further diminished her credibility. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was not a real chance the applicants would suffer persecution involving serious harm from SAD officials or anyone else upon return to India, and therefore, they did not meet the refugee criterion. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion, finding no real risk of significant harm as defined by the Act, based on its factual findings.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.