1723755 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse him a protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared persecution in Nepal due to threats from a group of people, his divorce, and potential social stigma. The Tribunal considered the applicant's credibility, his immigration history, and relevant country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether he met the criteria for complementary protection. This involved assessing the applicant's claims against the definitions of persecution, significant harm, and effective protection measures as outlined in the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and relevant Ministerial Directions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant lacked credibility, noting his failure to attend a scheduled interview without providing a reasonable explanation or evidence of illness. His claims regarding threats from a group were not accepted as establishing a well-founded fear of persecution. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the applicant's status as a divorcee, drug user, or individual with mental health issues did not, on the accepted facts, constitute membership of a particular social group for the purposes of the Act, nor did it establish a real risk of significant harm upon return to Nepal. The Tribunal also considered the possibility of internal relocation within Nepal and the availability of state protection, finding these factors did not support a claim for protection.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, concluding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).