1616406 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by three applicants seeking to avoid removal to India. The first applicant claimed he would face persecution in India due to corruption and pressure to sell his land to allies of the Bharatiya Janata Party, which he alleged was linked to the land mafia. The second and third applicants were his wife and father, respectively, who also claimed to fear harm. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants were owed protection by Australia.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as refugees, or under section 36(2)(aa) as persons facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to India. This involved assessing the applicants' claims against the definitions of "refugee" and "significant harm" as set out in the Act, including the concept of a "well-founded fear of persecution" and the availability of effective protection measures in India.

The Tribunal considered the evidence presented by the applicants, including the first applicant's statement detailing his alleged persecution for refusing to sell land. It also took into account relevant Ministerial Directions, Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information assessments. After reviewing the claims and evidence, the Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied that any of the applicants met the criteria for protection under either section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa). Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visas.