1703827 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Ms [A], who sought a protection visa. Ms [A] claimed she feared harm from a lender in Nepal to whom she owed a significant sum of money, alleging the lender had connections to the ruling party and could force her into prostitution or kill her if she returned to Nepal. She also claimed that the authorities in Nepal were not resourced to protect her and that there was no safe place for her to relocate within the country.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms [A] qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, whether she met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of her claims, considering her statements about the loan, the lender's alleged influence, and her own circumstances, including a prior return to Nepal in 2010 without incident.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on inconsistencies in Ms [A]'s account regarding who borrowed the money and how it was repaid, as well as the lack of evidence of harm during her previous return to Nepal. The Tribunal noted that Ms [A] had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons outlined in the Act, nor had she demonstrated substantial grounds for believing there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Nepal. The Tribunal also considered relevant policy guidelines and country information.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Ms [A] a protection visa, concluding that she did not satisfy the criteria for either refugee status or complementary protection.