1806713 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision by the Refugee Tribunal to affirm the refusal of a protection visa. The applicant's claim for protection was based on his alleged homosexual identity and a fear of persecution in Nepal. Previous proceedings had established that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he qualified as a refugee under Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention, or alternatively, whether he was entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's evidence regarding his sexual orientation, social activities, and personal relationship, as well as considering the country information regarding the status of LGBTI people in Nepal.

The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, finding that the applicant's evidence was inconsistent and lacked credibility. The applicant failed to provide recent evidence of his ongoing relationship or to call his purported partner as a witness, despite being invited to do so and being aware of the process for presenting witnesses. The court noted that photographs submitted as evidence were taken in 2010 or 2011 and did not establish a current or ongoing relationship. Given the lack of credible evidence to support his claim of being gay and the previous findings of no well-founded fear of persecution, the court concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion. Furthermore, the court found no basis for complementary protection.

Consequently, the Tribunal's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa was affirmed.