1718327 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indian national, sought a protection visa, claiming a well-founded fear of persecution upon return to India due to his Hindu religion in a Sikh-majority area, general corruption, and difficulty finding employment. The applicant had resided in Australia since 2008, with two voluntary returns to India, and had previously had his student visa cancelled. He applied for a protection visa in November 2015, after his further student visa was refused. The case was heard by Alan McMurran.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Alternatively, the court had to consider if the applicant met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), meaning there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to India, he would suffer significant harm.

The court considered the applicant's claims in light of relevant country information and the provisions of the Migration Act. It found that general corruption and a relatively high risk of unemployment or general crime affecting the population broadly did not constitute persecution giving rise to a well-founded fear. The court also noted the possibility of relocation within India and the availability of government mechanisms for protection. The applicant's expressed intention to remain in Australia, his two voluntary returns to India, and the delay in applying for protection were also factors considered.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Migration Act.