1724439 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by a citizen of Nepal. The applicant claimed to be a member of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) and alleged he was targeted, threatened, and tortured by political opponents due to his political activities. He also asserted that the Nepalese authorities were ineffective and corrupt, and that relocation within Nepal was not a viable option due to the nationwide network of his adversaries. The applicant provided a copy of his passport but failed to submit a detailed statement as requested by the Department, nor did he attend a scheduled interview, providing no explanation for his absence. Consequently, his application was refused by the Department.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) of the Act concerning refugee status, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) regarding complementary protection. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims in light of the evidence provided and relevant guidelines, including Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information assessments.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's claims were made in general terms and that he failed to provide the requested statement or any further evidence to substantiate his allegations. The Tribunal found that Nepal was the applicant's receiving country and that he was outside his country of nationality without a right to reside elsewhere. Crucially, the applicant's failure to attend the interview and provide supporting documentation meant that his claims could not be substantiated. 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 Act.