1619513 (Refugee)

The applicants, citizens of India, sought protection visas, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution and significant harm if returned to India. Their primary claim stemmed from a long-standing property dispute with the applicant's siblings, who they alleged had threatened their lives. The applicants also raised concerns about their daughter's health needs and the general treatment of Sikhs in India.

The court was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether they were refugees or if there were substantial grounds for believing they faced a real risk of significant harm upon return to India. This involved assessing the credibility of their claims regarding threats from family members, the availability of internal relocation within India, and the potential for harm based on their religion.

The Tribunal found that while the applicants had a property dispute with family members, the evidence did not establish a real chance of serious harm that was limited and localised. The Tribunal considered that any part of India outside the applicant's home village would be a safe internal relocation option. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants faced persecution due to their religion, Sikhism, or that their capacity to subsist in India was threatened. The Tribunal also noted that the applicants had experienced difficulties in a previous country of residence, but this did not translate to a well-founded fear of persecution in India.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958.