1709004 (REFUGEE)

This matter concerned an appeal by two applicants, identified as the applicant wife and applicant husband, against a decision of the Department of Home Affairs concerning their claims for protection visas. The applicants, who are citizens of India, arrived in Australia in January 2009 and subsequently made applications for protection visas in August 2016 after their migration journey in Australia had concluded unsuccessfully. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for protection under section 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c) of the Act, which encompasses refugee and complementary protection grounds.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the applicants had established claims for protection based on imputed political opinion stemming from the applicant wife's father's past political activities, membership in the particular social group of persons in an inter-caste and inter-faith marriage, and membership in the particular social group of persons involved in a violent land dispute. The Tribunal also considered the applicants' migration history, including their legal entry and exit from India on their own passports, and the delay in seeking protection.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicants had not established claims for protection. Regarding the imputed political opinion claim, the Tribunal found that the father's past political activities and subsequent departure from India did not establish a real chance of the applicants suffering harm upon return. The Tribunal also found that the applicants had not demonstrated a real chance of harm arising from the inter-caste and inter-faith marriage or the land dispute, noting the lack of evidence of any threats or harm suffered by the applicants themselves in relation to these matters. The Tribunal also took into account the applicants' migration history, which indicated legal travel to and from India and a significant delay in seeking protection, as factors weighing against their claims. The Tribunal also considered internal relocation to Delhi as a viable option for the applicants.