1703324 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Nepal. The applicant claimed to have been targeted by armed men demanding revolutionary taxes during Nepal's civil war, and subsequently received death threats. The applicant also relied on his father's political profile as a reason for not reporting the harassment. The decision under review was made by the Refugee Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, whether he was entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant country information and policy guidelines, and to assess the credibility of his evidence, particularly concerning the timing and nature of the alleged events.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa, finding significant discrepancies in the applicant's account of when the home invasion and threats occurred. The applicant provided multiple, inconsistent dates for the incident, some of which fell after the end of Nepal's civil war and the peace accord. While the applicant suggested splinter groups might still be active, the Tribunal found these inconsistencies, along with other claimed inconsistencies regarding his living arrangements and education, undermined his credibility. The Tribunal also noted the absence of evidence suggesting harm to other family members in Nepal.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee or on complementary protection grounds. The applicant did not meet the definition of a refugee due to the lack of a well-founded fear of persecution, and the inconsistencies in his evidence meant he could not establish a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa.