1615173 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indian national identifying as Christian, sought a protection visa, claiming fear of persecution from Hindu extremists in India due to his religious activities. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced significant harm if returned to India. The matter was before the Refugee Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, as defined by section 5J of the Migration Act 1958, or if he would suffer significant harm under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims of harassment and threats from Hindu extremists, and considering whether effective protection measures were available to him in India, including the possibility of reasonable relocation within the country.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of hostility, including incidents of disturbances at his church, unfounded rumours, denial of utilities, and refusal of services at restaurants and medical centres. It also noted his fear of being followed by vigilantes and an alleged incident where hired thugs intended to attack him. However, the Tribunal also took into account country information indicating that while there were instances of religious intolerance and violence against Christians in India, these were not widespread across all regions, and that India has constitutional guarantees of freedom of movement and mechanisms for addressing discrimination. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm, particularly in light of the possibility of reasonable relocation within India.

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