1704871 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indian national of the Christian faith, sought review of a decision by the Refugee Tribunal which affirmed the refusal of his application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared persecution from Muslim extremists in India due to his religious beliefs and his wife's active involvement in church activities. This was not the applicant's first application for protection; a prior application had been remitted back to the Tribunal. The current application was for complementary protection.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically his religion. This required the court to consider the applicant's credibility, particularly in light of inconsistencies between his first and second protection applications. The court also had to determine if the applicant's fear was objectively reasonable, taking into account the circumstances of his wife's return to India and the applicant's awareness of the claims made in his initial application.

The court found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. It noted significant inconsistencies between the claims made in the applicant's first and second protection applications. Crucially, the applicant stated he was unaware of the specific claims made in his first application, which the Tribunal found to be not credible. Furthermore, the fact that the applicant's wife had returned to India without incident undermined the applicant's asserted fear of persecution. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that the applicant had failed to discharge his onus of proof.