1615173 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 340

1615173 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 340 (27 February 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1615173

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  India

MEMBER:Saxon Rice

DATE:27 February 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 27 February 2017 at 9:23am

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – India – Religion – Christian – Hindu extremists – State protection – Relocation reasonable

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 5H, 5J(1), 5J, 5K-LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for `Immigration [in] August 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of India, applied for the visa [in] January 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that he was not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm if he returns to India.

3. This is therefore, an application for a review of that decision.

4. The applicant was given an opportunity to appear before the Tribunal on 13 February 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant did not require an interpreter and is not represented in this matter.

5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

6. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

7. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.

8. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).

9. Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

10. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

    Mandatory considerations

11. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

    CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    Background

12. When lodging the application to the Department, the applicant stated that he was born in [Andhra Pradesh]. He stated on the application form that he speaks, reads and writes Telugu and English and he speaks Hindi. He indicated that his religion was Christian and he identifies as ethnic South Indian.

13. The applicant stated that he completed high school in Hyderabad in [year]. He has completed a [course] in India and [courses] in [Country 1]. From 1998-2012, the applicant states that he worked in a number of [roles] in India and [Country 1]. From January 2013, the applicant has been the Senior Pastor at [Church 1].

14. The applicant holds an Indian passport issued in 2009. According to details provided in the delegate’s decision record that the applicant provided to the Tribunal, he first arrived in Australia [in] September 2015 on a [temporary] visa. The applicant also stated that he was previously refused a [temporary] visa extension and he has previously travelled to [Country 2] and [Country 1].

    Claims

15. The applicant made the following claims in his protection visa application, including relevant statement made during his departmental interview and which were summarised in the Delegate’s Decision Record that the applicant provided to the Tribunal:

    He worked as [occupation] and in other [similar] positions at various locations in India until January 2013 when he became a full-time pastor having only a very small income and mainly living off donations.

    On [date]/12/2012, he married [in] India3 and has a [child] born out of this relationship.

    Upon completion of his studies in [Country 1] in December 2012, he returned to India and resided in Guntur (State of Andhra Pradesh). Upon returning from a trip to [Country 2] in March 2014, he moved to Bangalore, State of Karnataka. In February 2015, he moved to Hyderabad where he resided until his departure for Australia in September 2015.

    The applicant fears persecution from Hindu extremists who oppose conversion of Hindus to Christianity. He said he moved to different cities in India but the situation is about the same everywhere: he always found hostility towards his church and religious activities among the local Hindu majority. The Hindu community suspected and accused him of converting Hindus.

    On one occasion, a crowd of Hindus gathered around his church in Guntur making noise and claiming that local Hindus were inside the church. The applicant was not aware of it. These persons visited the church without contacting him as it was open to anyone who wanted to attend the church service. The disturbance continued until the Hindus left the church on their own volition.

    The applicant said he and his ministries served the existing Christian community and did not set a goal to recruit or convert new members among non-Christians. However, they did not reject those who were sincere in their wish to seek god's grace and sought church membership of their own volition. Nevertheless, relatives and neighbours of these people would accuse the applicant of converting Hindus by deceit and issue threats. Hindu vigilantes sometime sat during the service to listen what was being said in the church and pick any perceived wrongs in order to use them against the applicant, or followed him outside the church.

    I asked the applicant how many conversions his church completed under his leadership in three years of its existence. He responded it was less than [number] people and there had been no negative consequences related to these particular conversions as they all had been voluntary.

    When he attended Bible conferences in other states, he was followed by vigilantes even there - apparently the local Hindu community passed the news to Hindus in other areas.

    Following the protests from the Hindu community, he was also forced to stop using flyers inviting church members to sermons even though these were distributed only within the church and its immediate vicinity only and did not contain appeals to non-Christians to attend the service.

    Unfounded rumours were put into circulation within the local Hindu community in order to smear the applicant and his church. Water and electricity supply to his home was cut off on several occasions from a few hours to a few days while other dwellings in the neighbourhood did not experience such problems. When he reported these interruptions, he was told that the problem must have been a common one for the whole neighbourhood although it was clearly not the case, and his requests for help were ignored.

    On several occasions, he and other church members and also their family members including children were refused service at restaurants and medical centres because of their religion.

    The applicant did not seek state protection against this harassment because he felt that authorities would act in the interest of the Hindu majority. Also, if it had become known that he complained to authorities, it would have made the situation only worse as it had further alienated the Hindu community. For the same reason, the Christian churches in India do not ally with each other and do not attempt to act as a single front against persecution and harassment.

    Churches at some locations close down because they cannot bear constant harassment, threats and bullying. The church he founded in Guntur remains currently closed. The local Christian parish started disintegrating. The applicant still maintains contact to his church in Guntur via other priests who worked with him and ordinary church members. They informed him that they were prevented from holding [Bible] study classes. Some of church members and priests had to move to their in-laws or other relatives to avoid harassment.

    The applicant referred to media report and accounts of befriended pastors claiming that Christian pastors in India are at a constant risk of being beaten and abused. He stated that in January or February 2015, 20 Christian pastors were beaten at once. One pastor was forcibly shaven, beaten and put on a donkey.

    I asked if he or his parish have ever been subjected to violent attacks. He responded in the negative.

    However, the applicant mentioned an incident that affected him personally and motivated him to move from Guntur to Hyderabad. He was visiting a fellow pastor and was followed by a group of Hindu who were hanging around his friend's house waiting for the applicant to come out. His pastor friend told him that he identified these people as local gang members hired to commit violent attacks. The applicant did not walk home and took a car ride instead. He realised that the thugs intended to attack him. He could have been easily killed by them.

    Luckily, one of these hired thugs died while sleeping the same night and the attack they were plotting never took place. The applicant ascribed it to divine intervention. He nevertheless decided not to tempt his good luck and soon moved to another state.

    The applicant grew tired of having constant fear for his 'safety and being harassed. Therefore he used the opportunity to attend a Bible seminar in Australia for leaving India. He did not initially know anything about Protection visas but was aware that Australia accepts refugees. In Australia he gathered further information about the process of applying for asylum from friends and refugee advocates. It took him some time to do so; therefore he did not apply for a Protection visa immediately on arrival.

    The applicant submitted several media reports about attacks on Christians by Hindus in India.

    Evidence

16. The evidence before the Tribunal includes the following relevant material:

    ·The completed protection visa form, lodged [in] January 2016, which includes the applicant’s written statements for claiming protection and a number of attachments.

    ·A photocopy of the applicant’s Indian passport.

    ·The delegate’s protection visa assessment record (‘delegate’s decision record’) [in] August 2016.

    ·The applicant’s online application for review on 23 August 2016, which included a copy of the delegate’s decision record and a number of submissions made in September 2016.

    ·The applicant gave oral evidence at a Tribunal hearing on 13 February 2017.

    ·Submission received from the applicant at the Tribunal hearing on 13 February 2017.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    Country of reference

17. The applicant claims and the Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of the personal details provided, that he is an Indian national. India is therefore the receiving country for the purpose of assessing the applicant’s claim for protection.

    Tribunal hearing

18. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant told the Tribunal that he was baptised in [a Christian denomination] faith and completed degrees in [courses] in Hyderabad, India and in [Country 1]. The applicant was married in December 2012 when he returned to India from [Country 1] and has a [age] year-old [child]. His wife and [child] are living with his wife’s parents near Guntur district and they have been living there for 2-3 years although they have been coming and going from there and Hyderabad when the applicant was living in Hyderabad.

19. The applicant told the Tribunal that his father was a Christian [occupation] in Andhra Pradesh but he died in 1992. His mother is living in Nizamabad, Telengana and he has a [sibling] living in [Country 1] and another [sibling] living in [Country 2]. [Other siblings] live in India, one is a government employee in Guntur and the other has been a [church] Pastor in Nizamabad for the past [number] years. [Another sibling] also lives in Nizamabad.

20. The applicant told the Tribunal that he registered ‘[Church 1]’ in Guntur in January 2013. He did not establish the church then but the applicant said he did lead some bible studies for children and preached at this time. He then went to [Country 2] in November 2013 and returned to India and to Bangalore in March 2014. He went to Bangalore because he was interested in a job there but it didn’t materialise so he moved to Hyderabad where he knew more people around April 2014 and he set up [Church 2]. Since he has been in Australia, the applicant said he is supporting himself through Centrelink payments and he has been going to church and posting weekly sermons on [a] website which attracts readers from [Country 2] and [Country 1].

21. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the establishment of his church in Hyderabad and its activities. The applicant said that his church was non-denominational and it was not set up in an actual church building but he rented a regular building on [a certain day] for Bible studies and on Sundays for his service. The applicant told the Tribunal that people lived downstairs and other people rented the building at other times, included at least one other church that was also Christian.

22. The applicant said his church congregation was between [number] people. He said that he and the church did not proselytise but the church communicated with local Christians in the area to tell them about the church and its activities. The applicant said that he communicated with Christians in the usual way by distributing flyers in the local newspaper but he was not actively seeking Hindus. The flyers would specify “for Christians only”. He said that advertising through flyers in the newspaper was common and it was no different to any other church. He also said that if a church was big enough then they would invest in television for advertising. The applicant said that the other church renting the same premises also communicated through similar flyers. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant said in his submission that in relation to flyers in newspapers, “people just ignore what is not related to them”.

23. The applicant said that he did not refuse anyone who came along to the church and some Hindus did come but unless the women wore a Bindu, Hindus could not be identified. He said he came to know about [Hindus] who would come along to the Church but they just came along, they did not convert to Christianity. The applicant said he did not perform any conversions of Hindus. He claimed that one person wanted to convert but their family found out and that stopped them.

24. The Tribunal asked the applicant about any incidents that occurred in relation to the operations of the church. The applicant said that around June 2014, the church received a phone call from someone asking them to stop distributing their flyers. The applicant said that his team member explained that the flyers did specify that they were for “Christians only” and therefore, they were following the generally regarded “rules”. The flyers were only distributed every few months but after this call, they were slowly reduced.

25. The applicant also said that on one other occasion, he thought around July/August 2014, a Hindu person came to listen to the service and as a result, Hindu people from the area came and made lots of noise outside and the applicant could not hear or preach until the Hindu that had come to listen to the service, left. The applicant also said that after this, he felt there was an ‘anti-religious feeling’ and people would follow him and ‘look at him seriously’ at the coffee shop.

26. The applicant also said that he then heard that people were trying to harm him physically. The applicant claimed that people were planning every day to harm him but because people were around or police were there, they had to wait and try to find him when no one else was around. The Tribunal asked the applicant how people were trying to harm him every day. The applicant said that when Hindus come to sit in the church, some Hindus allow it but some other people don’t allow it. He said other pastors have been harmed and killed and Hindus that have converted have been beaten. The Tribunal asked the applicant again about how people had tried to harm him. He said he was working with a colleague one night and when he came outside, he saw [number] people staring at him. His colleague told him that these people were hired to kill him. The Tribunal asked the applicant how his colleague knew these people were there to kill him and he said his colleague knew the potential attackers were hired killers because he knew them from his local area. The Tribunal asked the applicant why nothing happened and he wasn’t attacked if this was the case. The applicant said that he thought there might have been other people around or people were awake but the men were about 15ft away from him, one was on the phone and the other was ‘looking at him seriously’.

27. The applicant also said that the two people that were planning to attack him that night then died. He said that Jesus spoke to him and told him that these two people were very dangerous and as a result, Jesus Christ took their lives in their sleep. He thought this incident happened around July/August 2015. Later, the Tribunal noted its concern regarding the applicant effectively relying on ‘hearsay’ that these people were there to kill him. The applicant said that because these people were there to kill him, that’s why Jesus intervened and millions of people in Hyderabad came to know these two people had died. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was then blamed for the deaths of these men. The applicant said people came to know that God is with him and he had more respect but the threat of harm increased.

1. The applicant said that after this, he tried seriously to move to another country. He said he also went to [Town 1] in Tamil Nadu for a Christian conference in August 2015 for [number] days and from the second day onwards, there were suspicious people staring and passing information there. The applicant said that nothing actually happened, people followed him but they were not harmful. The Tribunal asked how he knew he had been followed and the applicant said he knew because they knew what he was doing every day.

2. The Tribunal asked the applicant what he feared in returning to India. The applicant said he feared being harmed physically or being killed. He said his church is closed and the ministry people were living with family members. He fears the same things will continue, lots of things are happening to Pastors. The applicant said that in addition to the harassment he faced, the electricity and water was cut at his home. He said he would call the electricity provider and they told him that the power was not out. The applicant provided the Tribunal with photos that he claimed demonstrated suspicious people installing extra lines on top of his house and after they did this, the power went off and this happened many times. The applicant said he asked the men for identification and they couldn’t show any. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he had not provided these photos to the Department. The applicant said that he had just found more photos on his camera. The Tribunal noted that it had some concerns about the photos in that they did not necessarily demonstrate anything other than people installing electricity and also suggested to the applicant that country information suggests that electricity and water infrastructure in India can be unstable and that this could be the reason for the outages rather than establishing that his electricity was being cut because he was Christian. The applicant said he called the electricity company and they said there was no power cut. He said he only experienced power outages after these guys installed whatever they installed and then he experienced power cuts sometimes.

3. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he reported any of his concerns to police. The applicant said he did not because most Christians don’t report anything because of the indirect threat to Christians. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he wouldn’t go to police if he was in fear of his life. He said that in India, he thought it would make the situation worse.

4. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had said his [sibling] was a Pastor in Nizamabad for the last [number] years and asked if he had experienced any issues. The applicant said his [sibling] had not experienced anything very serious. He then said his [sibling] took a break from the ministry in Hyderabad and went to Nizamabad, he then took a break again once in Nizamabad. The applicant then said that his [sibling] was a preaching Pastor in Nizamabad but he doesn’t have his own church and he doesn’t preach that much.

5. The Tribunal noted that in order to establish that the applicant’s fear is well-founded, the Tribunal needed to be satisfied that the feared harm relates to all areas of the country and spent some time providing the applicant with a summary of the independent country information relating to Christians in India and relocation set out at Attachment 2.

6. The Tribunal put to the applicant that India is a very large country with a population of more than 1.3 billion people and more than 53 million urban agglomerations. The applicant can speak, read and write English and Telugu and he can also speak Hindi. He has a considerable education and work history both in India and [Country 1] and he appeared to be fit and able-bodied. The Tribunal noted that unemployment was low in India, there was freedom of internal movement and it did not appear he would have any difficulty in supporting himself if he relocated. The Tribunal also put to the applicant that it appeared he would have no difficulty in relocating because he was Christian given there were millions of Christians in India and that DFAT’s assessment was that while there were incidents of violence, these represent a moderate risk of social discrimination and violence, although generally speaking most Christians can go about their lives without incident.

7. In relation to the applicant being a Christian Pastor and therefore, potentially at a higher risk of social discrimination and violence than Christians generally, the Tribunal acknowledged that there is country information to support that Christian Pastors have been attacked, including in Andhra Pradesh. However, the Tribunal noted that the level of potential threat from communal violence is also very uneven from state to state. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, a total of 2715 communal incidents occurred in the country from 2011 to 2014. Eight states Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh accounted for close to 85% of all the incidents. However, seven of the Eight North Eastern states — Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura — did not report a single communal incident in these four years which indicates that there are areas within India that present a significantly lower risk to Christians, including Christian Pastors than some other areas of the country. The April 2015 UK Home Office report, Country Information and Guidance, India: Religious Minority Groups, states that “religious minority communities are found across the country and generally live peacefully side by side” and that “the evidence does not support a finding that there is a real risk of persecution, serious harm, or other breach of fundamental human rights to members of those minorities”.

8. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he would like to comment on the country information and why it would not be reasonable for him to relocate given all his concerns appear to relate to Hyderabad. In relation to Christians in India, the applicant referred the Tribunal to an article from 2015 that he had provided regarding a government employee (an IAS officer) in Tamil Nadu being directed by the Tamil Nadu government to stop his preaching activities and said that this is a problem and Christians are being told to stop preaching. The Tribunal noted that the article appears to refer to an instance in Tamil Nadu. The Tribunal also noted that there are many Christians and Christian Pastors who are preaching in India. The applicant said that it depends on the person, some people may only have minor issues but when a person has a problem like when they want to convert, they report it to their family and it is reported to the Hindu community. The applicant claimed that family members did not like that there was a Hindu in his church and they think he did the wrong thing by allowing that person to sit in the church. He said that everyone knows so wherever he goes, they will know. The applicant also said that Christians are not given good jobs and he will face electricity and water cuts.

9. In relation to the applicant’s suggestion that ‘wherever he goes, they will know’, the Tribunal also outlined country information that suggests that the lack of any centralised registration system in India means that police are unable to check the whereabouts of inhabitants in their own state, let alone in any of the other states or union territories and that the possibility of the police, or any person or body being able to locate, at the behest of an individual’s family, a person who had fled to another state or territory in India, was remote. On this basis, the Tribunal asked the applicant why he thought he could be located. The applicant said that being on a list at a community level, he will be found. He said that police can see and find out and because he moves in society and people come to know him as a pastor. Christian websites say this has increased a lot and that people are finding it hard. The applicant referred the Tribunal to Christian websites and to search Google. The Tribunal also asked the applicant why he thought these people would be interested to pursue him across the country. The applicant said that people are very angry because of the conversion issue and it is considered that he has harmed them.

10. The Tribunal noted that there are many churches and many pastors in India that are not targeted and asked the applicant again why he, in his circumstances, would not be able to relocate to another area of the country. The applicant agreed there are many churches and pastors in India that are not targeted but said that in his case, it was a big issue which was also at the community level in Hyderabad in restaurants and the service he got in restaurants so if he moves elsewhere, they will come to know him after one month. The Tribunal asked the applicant if his name was on a list. The applicant said not all names are on the list because there are so many people facing these kinds of problems.

11. The applicant also said that the issue with the IAS officer (being told not to preach) is a national issue so if he goes to another location, he will face issues because it is a national issue. He also claimed to have faced issues when he moved to other places including Guntur, Bangalore and [Town 1]. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he had issues in Guntur and Bangalore when he had not established his church at the time he was in those places. The applicant said that when he was in Guntur, he didn’t have a church but he did take Bible studies and he delivered food to different people. He said people used to monitor him delivering food but it was not very serious compared to Hyderabad. He said he had electricity problems in Guntur too. In relation to Bangalore, the Tribunal noted that the applicant said he had gone to Bangalore to see about a job and asked why he was targeted here. The applicant said that not much happened in Bangalore but people were a bit suspicious and used to stare. It was like Guntur and not serious. The applicant also confirmed that while he was not aware the other Christian church that rented the same space as his church had any problems, he was most concerned about Hyderabad. He also said his family were safe near Guntur.

12. The Tribunal asked the applicant why, given he said he was actively looking to go to another country because of his fear, it took him 4 months after his arrival in Australia to apply for a Protection visa, after applying for a [temporary] visa extension first (which was refused) and noted that delays in applying for protection visas can cause the Tribunal to doubt the credibility of the claims being made. The applicant said he was searching for visa options once he got to Australia but he could not approach visa lawyers because of the cost. He could not find people to ask so he ‘Googled’. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he called the Department of Immigration. The applicant said that he didn’t know that he could. He said he started investigating after 1-2 months about how to change to some other visa and how to set up a church. The Tribunal noted that if he was ‘Googling’ how to change to some other visa and how to set up a church, it didn’t sound as though he was in fear of his life. The applicant said someone told him to look for an extension but then he saw [organisation] in January 2015 who advised him on protection.

13. In accordance with s. 424AA procedure, the Tribunal advised the applicant that he had told the delegate in his Department interview that the first incident at his church where the Hindus were gathered outside making noise occurred in early 2015 but he had told the Tribunal that this incident happened in July/August 2014. The Tribunal advised the applicant that the relevance of this information was that the inconsistency could cause the Tribunal to doubt the credibility of his evidence of this incident. The applicant did not seek additional time to respond and stated that he told the Department this incident happened the second or third month after starting the church and after the flyer incident so he should have said 2014. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s explanation and draws no adverse finding in relation to this inconsistency.

14. The Tribunal outlined its concerns to the applicant regarding the well-foundedness of his fears and whether his claims amount to serious or significant harm or the real chance or real risk of such harm in the future. The applicant said it was very serious in Hyderabad because he had been followed, people stare, he had is electricity and water cut and people had tried to harm him.

15. The Tribunal asked the applicant if there was any other information he would like to make it aware of. The applicant said that it was very serious regarding religion and it affects all the country because it is a Hindu country and all minorities will have an issue.

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

16. The applicant claims to face harm on return to India from Hindu extremists because he is a Christian Pastor and founder of [Church 2]. The applicant claims that Christians are persecuted in India by Hindus and he has been persecuted because Hindus came to his church in Hyderabad (although they did not convert to Christianity) and there is a fear of Christians converting Hindus to Christianity.

17. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is Christian and that he is a Pastor and founder of [Church 2] in Hyderabad. While some of the applicant’s claims may be stretching the bounds of credulity (such as the people believed to be intent on harming the applicant having their lives taken by Jesus Christ), it is not inconceivable that the applicant has experienced some harassment as the Pastor of his church in Hyderabad that may amount to persecution. Giving the applicant every benefit of the doubt, the Tribunal is prepared to accept for the purposes of this review that the applicant has been harassed by Hindu extremists and they intended to harm him in Hyderabad where he founded his church.

18. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm at the hands of Hindu extremists in the reasonably foreseeable future in Hyderabad, Telengana. The Tribunal also accepts that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to India, he faces a real risk of significant harm at the hands of Hindu extremists in Hyderabad, Telengana.

19. It was put to the applicant at the hearing that India is a vast and very populous nation with freedom of movement, and that independent country information does not support that authorities conduct background checks when Indian nationals relocate internally. In addition, there is a very high rate of internal mobility within India with estimates of approximately 30% of the population migrating internally. The Tribunal is satisfied that country information does not support that the Hindu extremists from Hyderabad or anyone else would be able to find the applicant in the rest of India, especially given information about the lack of central registries for housing, rentals and schools and the difficulties that even police have in tracking down individuals.

20. It is almost three years since the applicant’s church was harassed by a group of Hindus, 18 months since the applicant thought people were hired to kill him and 17 months since the applicant has been in Australia. The Tribunal doubts that Hindu extremists from Hyderabad would be motivated to seek out the applicant in other parts of India at the behest of an individual’s family. Even if Hindu extremists from Hyderabad were motivated to pursue the applicant across India, the country information indicates that India has a massive population and enormous cities. There is no unified national registration system for Indians and very limited sharing of information between police forces. The country information concerning the lack of central registries and the difficulties police have in tracking down individuals across the nation indicates that the chance or the risk that they would be able to locate the applicant is remote. Given the totality of the independent country information and considering his individual circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the applicant could relocate to other Indian states where there is a remote risk of the occurrence of the feared harm.

21. The applicant can read, speak and write Telugu and English and speak Hindi, which are languages spoken by millions of people and in a number of Indian states. The applicant appeared to be able-bodied and has a considerable education and employment history. Independent country information indicates that unemployment is low in India and the country is experiencing substantial economic growth. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant could not move to another part of India and that he could not obtain employment which would be sufficient to support himself. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim that Christians are unable to get employment given the applicant has had a lengthy employment history in India as a Christian and so have his [siblings] who are Christian. The Tribunal is also not aware of country information to support this claim. Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant could relocate and find employment in India.

22. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has relocated to a number of places in the past, including lengthy periods in [Country 1] and Australia. He also said his wife and child were currently safe and living with her parents in Guntur but they had moved between Guntur and Hyderabad when he was living in Hyderabad. The applicant’s wife and child appear to have had the support of her family, both while the applicant was living in Hyderabad and since the applicant has been in Australia as the applicant said he was supporting himself through Centrelink payments. The Tribunal finds that it would be reasonable to relocate in India in relation to his family responsibilities given the applicant’s wife and child have been supported by her family both when the applicant was in India and since he has been in Australia and the applicant stated that his family has previously moved to different locations with him.

23. As noted above, the applicant is a Christian Pastor and founder of a church. Independent country information indicates that millions of Christians are present throughout the country representing approximately 2.4% of the population. The Tribunal is satisfied that Christians in India can practise their religion without restriction and that they have indiscriminate access to employment. The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant returns to India, he will continue in his role as Pastor of [Church 2] and [Church 1]. Based on country information, the Tribunal is satisfied that the level of potential threat from communal violence is very uneven from state to state and there are states such as Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura that did not report a single communal incident over a four-year period from 2011-2014 which indicates that there are areas within India that present a significantly lower risk to Christians, including Christian Pastors, than some other areas of the country. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant’s [sibling] is a Pastor in Nizamabad and while the applicant claimed that his [sibling] had also experienced some minor issues, he also told the Tribunal that his [sibling] was still preaching in Nizamabad. Therefore, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim that persecution of Christians or Christians being told to stop preaching is a national issue.

24. Given the Tribunal accepts that if the applicant returns to India, he will continue in his role as Pastor of [Church 2] and [Church 1], the Tribunal is not aware of any country information that would prevent the applicant from establishing [Church 2] in a new location. In particular, the Tribunal notes that [Church 2] in Hyderabad was located in a building that was rented on [certain days] and Sundays. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant could re-establish [Church 2] and build a new congregation. In doing so, the applicant may also rely on donations for income as he has done in the past.

1. The Tribunal also acknowledges country information regarding the fear of conversion of Hindus to other religions and right-wing Hindu organisations conducting “homecoming” ceremonies in which Christians and Muslims are “re-converted” to Hinduism. However, the applicant told the Tribunal that he has not been involved in conversion of Hindus and he was conducting his church activities in accordance with established “norms” regarding the practice of religion in India. He was not intentionally seeking to disrupt the local community. The applicant also made no claim that he would proselytise or actively seek to convert Hindus if he returns to India and gave no indication that if he returned and continued the operation of [Church 2] that he would do so any differently to his previous practice.

2. On that basis, the Tribunal is not aware of any country information that suggests that all Christian Pastors (including those that have founded a new church) are at risk of persecution in all parts of India and it does not accept the applicant’s claim that all Christians are being forced to stop preaching. In particular, the Tribunal acknowledges the April 2015 UK Home Office report, Country Information and Guidance, India: Religious Minority Groups, which states that “religious minority communities are found across the country and generally live peacefully side by side” and that “the evidence does not support a finding that there is a real risk of persecution, serious harm, or other breach of fundamental human rights to members of those minorities”. The Tribunals also notes the US Department of State - International Religious Freedom Report for 2015 which stated that in a speech at a New Delhi event honoring Indian Catholic saints on February 17, India’s Prime Minister Modi said, “My government will ensure that there is complete freedom of faith and that everyone has the undeniable right to retain or adopt the religion of his or her choice without coercion or undue influence”. The applicant’s evidence in this regard is contrary to his evidence that some Hindus allow other Hindus to sit in Christian churches and his acknowledgement that there are many Christian churches and pastors in India that are not targeted.

3. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim that he could not relocate because he has already moved to other places and experienced similar issues. The applicant’s claims in this regard relate to Guntur and Bangalore, however, the applicant was in these locations prior to his establishment of [Church 2] in Hyderabad and which he bases his claims. While the applicant claimed he could not relocate on this basis, he also stated that what he experienced in Guntur and Bangalore was people staring and being a bit suspicious but it was not very serious. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant established any connection between his claimed fear in Hyderabad and his relatively short periods of time in Guntur and Bangalore, or that his concerns in these places amounted to serious or significant harm. Similarly, the Tribunal is not persuaded by the applicant’s evidence that Hindu extremists from Hyderabad followed him to his Christian conference in [Town 1] for four days on the basis that the applicant believed there were suspicious people staring and passing information. The applicant did not establish any link between people in [Town 1] and his concerns in Hyderabad other than a general fear held by the applicant.

4. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant claimed that he could not relocate because he ‘moves in society and people come to know him’ as well as ‘lists’ online. When asked if his name was on a ‘list’, the applicant then said that not all names are on the list because there are so many people. Therefore, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s name is on any ‘list’ that would inhibit his ability to relocate within India. While the applicant would likely become known within whichever society he lives given his profile as a Pastor, based on independent country information, the Tribunal is satisfied that the chance of the applicant being located in India is remote and given the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s name is on any ‘list’ the Tribunal is satisfied that any local profile the applicant may develop in a new location will not increase the risk of the occurrence of the feared harm from Hindu extremists from Hyderabad tracking him down.

5. Similarly, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim that he has been persecuted in India by having his electricity and water cut, or that he fears persecution on this basis in the future. The Tribunal was not convinced that the applicant established any link between his activities as a Christian Pastor and the connection or disconnection of his electricity and water supply. The Tribunal notes the photographs provided by the applicant that show men with some sort of cable near a rooftop. However, as raised with the applicant, the photos do not support any particular account of the applicant’s electricity services and when taken together with country information that suggests that India’s electricity and water infrastructure can be unstable[1], the Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant experienced the electricity and water outages as claimed, it was connected to his role as a Christian Pastor. The Tribunal also referred to country information that outlines that interfering with water supply was interpreted by Indian courts in the past as a violation of constitutional right to life[2] and therefore, he would have a legal avenue to explore if he genuinely believed his water supply was interrupted in a personal attack in the future.

   [1] Asian Development Outlook 2016: Asia’s Potential Growth, Asian Development Bank, 1 March 2016.

   [2] Amy Hardberger, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Water: Evaluating Water as a Human Right and the Duties and Obligations it Creates, Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, Vol.4, Issue 2, 2005, pp.331-352.

6. Considering the independent country information and his individual circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the applicant could relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real chance he will suffer serious harm. As such, the Tribunal is not satisfied, in accordance with s 5J(1)(c), that the real chance of persecution relates to all areas within India and therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s fear of persecution is well-founded.

7. Considering the independent country information and his individual circumstances, the Tribunal also finds that it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm and that 36(2B)(a) applies in his case. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that there are not substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to India, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

   CONCLUSIONS

8. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).

9. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal [is OR is not] satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

10. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).]

    DECISION

11. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

    Saxon Rice
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT  -  Extract from Migration Act 1958

    5 (1) Interpretation
    …
    cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

    (a)severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

    (b)pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

    but does not include an act or omission:

    (c)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

    (d)arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …
    degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

    (a)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

    (b)that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …
    torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

    (a)for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

    (b)for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

    (c)for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

    (d)for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

    (e)for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

    but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …
    receiving country,  in relation to a non-citizen, means:

    (a)a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

    (b)if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

    …

    5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

    (a)   the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

    (b)   there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (c)   the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

    Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

    (2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

    Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

    (3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

    (a)   conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

    (b)   conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

    (c)   without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

    (i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in them practice of his or her faith;

    (ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

    (iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

    (iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

    (v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

    (vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

    (4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

    (a)   that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

    (b)   the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

    (c)   the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

    (5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

    (a)   a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

    (b)   significant physical harassment of the person;

    (c)   significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

    (d)   significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (e)   denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

    (6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

    5K  Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

    For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

    (a)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

    (b)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

    (i)the first person has ever experienced; or

    (ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

    where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

    Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

    5L  Membership of a particular social group other than family

    For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

    (a)   a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

    (b)   the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

    (c)   any of the following apply:

    (i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

    (ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

    (iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

    (d)   the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

    5LA  Effective protection measures

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

    (a)   protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

    (i)the relevant State; or

    (ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

    (b)   the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

    (2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

    (a)   the person can access the protection; and

    (b)   the protection is durable; and

    (c)   in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

    ..

    36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

    …

    (2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

    (a)   the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

    (b)   the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

    (c)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

    (d)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

    (e)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

    (2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

    (a)   it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)   the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (c)   the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

    …

    ATTACHMENT 2 – Independent Country Information

    Relocation in India

    India has some 1.3 billion people (July 2015 estimate) in some 53 million urban agglomerations in India, and the largest 8 cities have between 4 and 12 million people each.[3][4][5]

    [3] – Accessed November 2016. See also USDOS, International Religious Freedom Report for 2015, is the majority language in the following northern states: Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Delhi, Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. Hindi is the official language of eight of the nine states listed above.[6] Telugu is the primary language in the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. It is also spoken by significant minorities in states including Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Odisha and Tamil Nadu. Telugu ranks third by the number of native speakers in India (74 million, 2001 census).[7] English is widespread in business circles and as a second language. Article 348 of the Constitution provides that all proceedings of the Supreme Court and High Courts, as well as bills and acts of Parliament, must be in English.[8]

    [6] University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign – Linguistics Department (n.d.), A Brief Profile of the Hindi Language - accessed November 2016.

    [7]

    [8] UK Home Office, Country of Origin Information Report – India, p. 10. Accessed November 2016.

    According to the 2011 census, the most recent year for which disaggregated figures have been released, Hindus constitute 79.8 percent of the population, Muslims 14.2 percent, Christians 2.3 percent, and Sikhs 1.7 percent.[9]

    [9] USDOS, International Religious Freedom Report for 2015, Times of India reported on 23 June 2013 that the overall Indian unemployment rate was 3%.[10] In April 2013, the World Bank issued a report in which it expected economic growth in India to accelerate to 6.7% in 2015, and concluded that long-term prospects remain bright.[11]

    [10] Accessed November 2016.

    [11] - accessed November 2016

    The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) states that Sections 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution guarantee citizens the right to move freely throughout the territory of India and the right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India, subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India and the security of the State. The condition of ‘reasonable restrictions’ is left to the interpretation of government and courts. It gives room for laws and regulations that can restrict movement (for example, in places where there is unrest or in some border areas) and residence (outsiders cannot buy land in Jammu and Kashmir or in Uttarakhand). DFAT also states that there is a very high rate of internal mobility within India. The 2001 Census stated that there were around 307 million internal migrants in India, defining as a migrant anyone who lived in a place different to their place of birth or place of last residence. This figure represents approximately 30 per cent of India’s total population.[12]

    [12] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report – India, 15 July 2015, p. 21.

    USDOS states that Indian law provides for freedom of movement within the country, and the government generally respects this in practice.[13] The UK Home Office reported that background checks by the Indian police are not conducted where Indian nationals relocate within India, as the authorities have neither the resources nor the language abilities to monitor internal relocation. While there is not currently a national registration system for Indian citizens, several proposals and versions of identity card are being used in various states for various purposes.[14]

    [13] US Department of State 2013, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012 – India, 19 April, Section II

    [14] UK Home Office 2010, Country of Origin Information Report, 21 September, p. 95.

    DFAT also states that it is not aware of any credible reports of mistreatment of returnees by Indian authorities, including failed asylum seekers. India does not have a centralised registration system in place which would enable the police to check the whereabouts of inhabitants in their own state, let alone in any of the other states or union territories within the country. A February 2015 report by the UK Home Office said that the possibility of the police, or any person or body being able to locate, at the behest of an individual’s family, a person who had fled to another state or territory in India, was remote.[15]

    [15] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report – India, 15 July 2015, p. 22.

    The IRBC corresponded with an official at the Canadian High Commission in India, who said that “police share information about ‘law enforcement’ but indicated that ‘there is limited sharing of information between police forces’ and police are not required to ‘report the movements of persons of interest to other offices’”.[16] In relation to tracing a person through registration, India reportedly does not have central registries for housing, rentals, schools, etc. If a person wishes to transfer voter registration to another location, however, the elections committee requires proof of address.[17]

    [16] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2012, India: Communication between police offices across the country; whether police across India can locate an individual, particularly as a result of registration requirements for employment, housing and education, security checks, and technological surveillance, IND104065.E, 14 May Accessed November 2016.

    [17] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2012, India: Communication between police offices across the country; whether police across India can locate an individual, particularly as a result of registration requirements for employment, housing and education, security checks, and technological surveillance, IND104065.E, 14 Accessed November 2016

    The previously mentioned official from the Canadian High Commission in India indicated to the IRBC that as there is no central police database and records are kept in local police stations in India, “this makes it ‘extremely difficult, if not impossible’ to locate an individual as a result of a security check, unless there is a match between a local police station and the subject of a security check”.[18] It was reported in April 2011 that an applicant was not required to go to the police station to obtain identity documents such as a driver’s licences, voter cards, or ration cards.[19] The IRBC also reported on 10 May 2016 that according to information posted on the website of the Kerala Police Department, police stations across India are "virtually unconnected islands in the case of Crime & Criminal Tracking. There is no system of effective data storage … sharing and accessing data," and there is "no single system" by which a police unit can "talk to another directly".[20]

    [18] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2012, India: Communication between police offices across the country; whether police across India can locate an individual, particularly as a result of registration requirements for employment, housing and education, security checks, and technological surveillance, IND104065.E, 14 May Accessed November 2016.

    [19] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2011, India: Identity documents required to obtain employment and housing in Delhi, Mumbai and Chandigarh; whether individuals must present themselves apt police stations to obtain identity documents; issuance procedures for ration cards, birth certificates, driver’s licenses, and voter cards, IND103725.E, 27 April - Accessed November 2016

    [20] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2016, India: Communication between police offices across the country, including the use of POLNET; whether police across India can locate an individual, particularly as a result of registration requirements for employment, housing and education, security checks, and surveillance technology, 10 May 2016, - Accessed November 2016.

    Christians in India

    DFAT states that According to the 2001 Census, approximately 24 million Indians identified as Christian, 2.3 per cent of India’s population at that time, making Christianity India’s third-largest religion. According to Indian Christian traditions, Christianity was brought to India by the Apostle Thomas in the first century CE, and a number of Indian Christian denominations are among the world’s oldest. From the late 15th century onwards, missionaries from Portugal and other European countries introduced Roman Catholicism to India. Protestant missions from Europe and America arrived from the beginning of the 18th century, and were particularly active during the period of British rule.

    The largest Christian denominations today are Roman Catholics (17.3 million); the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church (3 million); the Protestant Church of South India (4 million); and the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (2.5 million). Christianity is the majority religion in the small north-east states of Mizoram, Nagaland and Meghalaya, and also has a strong residual presence in the south Indian states of Goa, Kerala and Tamil Nadu. There have been a large number of prominent Christian Indians, including former and present Chief Ministers and State Governors.

    Christians have generally coexisted peacefully with members of other religious groups in India. However, there have been recent reports that right-wing Hindu organisations allied with the BJP have begun conducting “homecoming” ceremonies, in which Christians and Muslims are “re-converted” to Hinduism (on the basis that Hinduism is their ancestral religion). Some participants in these ceremonies have allegedly been threatened with violence if they did not participate. Such incidents have raised considerable concern among some Indian Christians of an increasing atmosphere of religious intolerance in India.

    The US Commission on International Religious Freedom 2016 Annual Report — India indicates that, in 2015, religious tolerance deteriorated and religious freedom violations increased in India. Minority communities, especially Christians, Muslims, and Sikhs, experienced numerous incidents' of intimidation, harassment, and violence, largely at the hands of Hindu nationalist groups. Members of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) tacitly supported these groups and used religiously-divisive language to further inflame tensions. These issues, combined with longstanding problems of police bias and judicial inadequacies, have created a pervasive climate of impunity, where religious minority communities feel increasingly insecure, with no recourse when religiously-motivated crimes- occur.[21]

    [21] US Commission on International Religious Freedom 2016 Annual Report — India, US Commission on International Religious Freedom, 2 May 2016

    In early 2016, an advocacy group reported that there were at least 365 major attacks on Christians and their institutions during 2015, compared to 120 in 2014; these incidents affected more than 8,000 Christians. For example, in November 2015, Hindu nationalists severely beat 40 Christians worshipping in a private home in Telangana state, killing one woman's unborn child. In February 2016, a mob of 35 people beat Father Jose Kannumkuzhy of the Ramanathapauram Syro-Malabar diocese and three lay church officials in Tamil Nadu state.

    Reportedly, local police seldom provide protection, refuse to accept complaints, rarely investigate, and sometimes encourage Christians to move or hide their religion.[22]

    [22] Ibid.

    At the same time, the above numbers have to be seen in the right perspective: according to the 2001 Census (latest figures available), approximately 24 million Indians identified as Christian, or 2.3 per cent of India's population at that time, making Christianity India's third-largest religion.[23] 8,000 victims of anti-Christian violence reported in 2016, thus, constitute 0.03%. Even if considered that some attacks might have remained unreported, the proportion of Christians who faced real harm in India is extremely small.

    [23] DFAT Country Information Report India July 2015

    DFAT’s assessment is that these incidents of violence represent a moderate risk of social discrimination and violence, although generally speaking most Christians can go about their lives without incident.[24]

    [24] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report – India, 15 July 2015, p. 12.

    The level of potential threat from communal violence is also very uneven from state to state. According to the Ministry of Home Affairs, a total of 2715 communal incidents occurred in the country from 2011 to 2014. Eight states Bihar, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh accounted for close to 85% of all the incidents. These states were ruled by various different parties and not a single party. Seven of the Eight North Eastern states — Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura — did not report a single communal incident in these four years. Andhra Pradesh where the applicant founded the Christian ministries had a moderate number of accidents not exceeding double digits in four years' time.[25]

    [25] India had 57 communal incidents per month in the last 4 years and 85% of these incidents occurred in just 8 states, Factly, 8 May 2015.

    The Ministry for Minority Affairs (MMA), the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), and the National Commission for Minorities (NCM) are governmental bodies created to investigate allegations of religious and other forms of discrimination and make recommendations for redress to the relevant local or national government authorities. Although NHRC recommendations do not have the force of law, central and local authorities generally follow them. The NCM and NHRC have intervened in several instances of communal tension and incidents of harassment and violence against minorities. Such intervention includes high profile cases, such as the 2002 violence in Gujarat and the 2008 attacks against Christians in Odisha (formerly Orissa).[26] This information indidcate that Christian churches in India have avenues to voice their grievances to authorities.

    [26] USDOS, India – International Religious Freedom Report 2011, 30 July 2012.

    The US Department of State - International Religious Freedom Report for 2015 states that in a speech at a New Delhi event honoring Indian Catholic saints on February 17, Prime Minister Modi said, “My government will ensure that there is complete freedom of faith and that everyone has the undeniable right to retain or adopt the religion of his or her choice without coercion or undue influence...My government will not allow any religious group, belonging to the majority or the minority, to incite hatred against others, overtly or covertly.” According to the British newspaper The Guardian, religious leaders of different faiths praised his remarks, but some members of his party stated the prime minister was “pandering” to a “secular” crowd. In interviews in May and June, according to the Hindustan Times, the prime minister said, “So far as the government is concerned, there is only one holy book, which is the constitution...” and “Our constitution guarantees religious freedom to every citizen and that is not negotiable...Any discrimination or violence against any community will not be tolerated.”

    The Tribunal also notes that the April 2015 UK Home Office report, Country Information and Guidance, India: Religious Minority Groups, states that “religious minority communities are found across the country and generally live peacefully side by side” and that “the evidence does not support a finding that there is a real risk of persecution, serious harm, or other breach of fundamental human rights to members of those minorities”.[27]

    [27] UK Home Office, Country Information and Guidance, India: Religious Minority Groups, April 2015, p. 5.

    
    

[4] - Accessed November 2016

[5] - accessed November 2016.