1621187 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Protection visa by a national of India. The applicant claimed a fear of harm from his former wife's politically influential parents, alleging they had threatened to kill him during their marriage and continued to do so through his friends in India after their divorce. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm if returned to India.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's credibility, finding his evidence to be vague and inconsistent. Specifically, the applicant could not recall key details such as the dates of alleged threats, the specific nature of those threats beyond a general statement of intent to kill, or the names of the individuals making the threats, despite claiming they were politically influential and had threatened his life. The Tribunal found it implausible that someone facing such serious threats would have such a poor recollection of the events, particularly when the threats were alleged to have continued. The lack of documentary evidence to support any aspect of his claim further undermined his credibility.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.