1713140 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, an Indian national, claimed to fear persecution in India due to his Muslim faith and the rise of Hindu nationalism. He alleged he had experienced verbal and physical harassment from business rivals with political connections, who demanded money and threatened him. The applicant also claimed that internal relocation within India was not a viable option due to widespread violence against religious minorities, and that authorities would not provide protection.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether Australia had protection obligations towards him. This involved assessing whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to India, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims of past persecution, his fear of future harm based on his religion, and the effectiveness of internal relocation and state protection in India.

The Tribunal found the applicant to be a credible witness regarding the events he experienced in India, accepting that he ran a business and faced harassment from Hindu men connected to Hindu politics. These individuals demanded money and subjected him to physical intimidation and humiliation, though he did not sustain serious injury. The Tribunal also accepted that the applicant did not report these incidents to the police due to their perceived bias towards the perpetrators. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm upon return to India, applying the same standard as the refugee criterion. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Australia did not have protection obligations towards the applicant.

Despite affirming the visa refusal, the Tribunal referred the applicant's case to the Minister for consideration under section 417 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This referral was based on exceptional compassionate circumstances, specifically noting that the applicant's youngest child is an Australian citizen who would suffer serious, ongoing, and irreversible harm and continuing hardship if her family were separated. The Tribunal also highlighted the second applicant's valuable employment in a critical role within an aged care facility, where her departure would significantly impact services for vulnerable families.