1701800 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a national of Nepal. The applicant claimed she was unable to return to Nepal due to her family's perceived association with the former royal family, which she alleged led to them being targeted by various political groups, including Maoists. She asserted that her parents' home had been destroyed and her parents were in hiding. The decision reviewed was made by the Refugee Tribunal.

The 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 a real risk of significant harm in Nepal. This involved assessing the applicant's claims of persecution based on her family's surname and perceived connection to the royal family, and evaluating the credibility of her evidence regarding the destruction of her parents' home and the risk to her family.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was a national of Nepal, her claims of persecution were not substantiated. It noted that the applicant acknowledged her family was not directly related to the royal family but merely shared a surname. Crucially, the Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding the destruction of her parents' home to be inconsistent and lacking corroboration, particularly given that her parents continued to reside in Nepal and could have provided documentation. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not personally suffered harm and had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Nepal.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that she did not satisfy the criteria under either section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).