1807693 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, an Indian national, sought review of this decision, claiming he feared persecution if returned to India. The delegate had refused the visa on the grounds that the applicant did not meet the definition of a refugee under the Migration Act 1958 and that there were no substantial grounds to believe he would suffer significant harm upon removal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee as defined by the Act, or alternatively, whether he qualified for complementary protection. This involved assessing 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 there was a real chance of such persecution occurring in India. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claims of significant harm as a basis for complementary protection.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's claims of persecution were not well-founded. His primary claim stemmed from a family dispute over agricultural land in India, which had led to the murder of his uncle in 2009. While the applicant alleged that the criminal justice system's response was inadequate due to political pressure, the Tribunal noted that arrests, trials, and convictions had occurred, and a civil action was ongoing. The Tribunal found the applicant's fear of future escalation and inability to access state protection to be based on vague subjective feelings rather than concrete evidence of a real and foreseeable risk of persecution. His second claim, relating to an assault in Australia, was also dismissed as not establishing a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. The Tribunal applied principles from cases such as *MIEA v Guo* and *Nagalingam v MILGEA*, emphasizing that the onus is on the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal of the statutory elements, and that claims must be coherent, plausible, and not run counter to known facts.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.