1700031 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, of Nepalese ethnicity, claimed to fear harm from her father and brother in Nepal due to her relationships and choices, which were opposed by her family. The AAT was tasked with determining the credibility of the applicant's claims and whether, on the accepted claims, the criteria for a protection visa were met.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was the credibility of the applicant's claims of fear of harm from her family in Nepal. This involved assessing the consistency of her evidence, particularly in light of her failure to attend a hearing which prevented the Tribunal from questioning her directly about the veracity of her claims. The Tribunal was required to consider whether, even if some claims were accepted, they established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm as defined by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The Tribunal found that it could not adequately assess the applicant's credibility due to her absence from the hearing, which meant her claims could not be properly tested. While acknowledging the applicant's stated fears regarding her father and brother, the Tribunal concluded that these claims, in the absence of direct examination and due to inconsistencies, did not establish the necessary grounds for a protection visa. The Tribunal applied the principles relating to the assessment of credibility and the requirements for establishing a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm under the Act.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, specifically s.36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958*, as her claims did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.