1703221 (Refugee)

The applicants, nationals of India from Gujarat and belonging to the Patidar ethnic group, sought protection visas. They claimed to have fled India due to persecution by "political goons" and the government, alleging torture by Patidar leaders and police, and fearing imprisonment and harm if returned. The first applicant stated he was a supporter of the Congress Party and opposed to the Patidar movement led by Hardik Patel, which sought OBC status for Patidars.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required determining if the first applicant possessed a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or if there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to India. The Tribunal also considered the relevance of country information regarding the Patidar movement and caste dynamics in Gujarat.

The Tribunal found the first applicant to be not a credible witness, and therefore did not accept his protection claims. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal considered the applicant's oral evidence at a hearing and an earlier interview, alongside information about the Patidar movement and its leader, Hardik Patel. The Tribunal noted that while caste identity remains significant in India, constitutional provisions exist to address disadvantage, and reservation policies have been a source of protest from groups like the Patidars. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards either applicant.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, as they failed to satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).