1700623 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indian national, sought review of a decision affirming the refusal of her protection visa application. The applicant claimed she married an Australian citizen out of love, which led to her being disowned by her family and facing threats of honour killing in India. She had previously applied for partner visas, which were refused on the grounds that her relationship with her Australian citizen husband was not genuine and continuing. At the time of the review, the applicant was divorced from her husband.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to India (complementary protection). This involved determining if she held a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or a real risk of significant harm, and whether effective protection measures were available in India.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information from DFAT regarding India. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's previous partner visa applications had been refused due to a lack of a genuine and continuing spousal relationship. While acknowledging the country information regarding violence against women for falling in love against family wishes and inter-faith or inter-caste marriages, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. Specifically, there was no suggestion that the applicant qualified as a refugee or was eligible for complementary protection, nor that she was a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.