1615365 (Refugee)

The applicants, a couple and their child, sought protection visas. They claimed that the first applicant was a Christian who promoted his faith in India, and the second applicant, formerly Muslim, had converted to Christianity. They asserted that the second applicant's strict Muslim family, along with others from their mosque, had vowed to kill them. Furthermore, they claimed that since their arrival in Australia, Muslim terrorists in their area had taken up the matter and undertaken to kill them to set an example. The case was heard by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether they satisfied the refugee criterion under s.36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to India, there was a real risk that any of the applicants would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicants' claims in light of relevant policy guidelines and country information. It noted that while reports indicated that conversions from Islam to Christianity in India could lead to harm, these occurrences were sporadic and infrequent, and did not suggest that serious harm for apostasy was commonplace. The Tribunal also considered the possibility of relocation within India, noting that Indian law generally guarantees freedom of movement and that authorities have limited capacity to track individuals who relocate internally. Given the available information, the Tribunal was not satisfied that any of the applicants faced a real risk of significant harm upon return to India, nor that they met the criteria for a well-founded fear of persecution.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria under s.36(2)(a) or (aa), and therefore could not satisfy the further criteria under s.36(2)(b) or (c) for the grant of the visa.