1617498 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a Nepalese national seeking a protection visa. The applicant had previously applied for and been refused a protection visa under a different identity in 2006, a decision affirmed on review. The current application was based on new claims, distinct from those previously made.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion or as a convert to Christianity. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant would face persecution as a Nepalese citizen who had returned after an extended period overseas, or as a person whose family owed money to lenders. The Tribunal also had to assess whether the applicant met the criteria for complementary protection, specifically whether there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Nepal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution as a Christian, noting that while some societal or family discrimination might occur, Nepal's constitution guarantees freedom of religion and public conversion to Christianity is generally safe. The Tribunal also found no evidence to support claims of persecution based on political opinion, return after an extended absence, or family debt. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not face a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Nepal, and therefore did not meet the criteria for complementary protection. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.