1810383 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse protection visas to citizens of India. The primary applicant, his wife, and their Australian-born son sought protection on the basis of the applicant's identity as a Muslim in India, alleging fear of harm due to communal riots and government policies. The delegate had refused the visas, finding the applicants were not refugees and that there were no substantial grounds to believe they would suffer significant harm upon removal to India.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether they were refugees under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) due to a well-founded fear of persecution, or alternatively, whether they qualified for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) by facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. The assessment involved evaluating the applicant's claims of being a Muslim activist and his specific fears of targeting, against available country information regarding the situation for Muslims in India.

The Tribunal found the applicant's claims of being a "Muslim activist" to be vague and unsubstantiated, lacking persuasive corroboration beyond general statements of religious observance and participation in low-level community activities. While accepting the applicant's evidence of experiencing some religiously motivated harassment during college, the Tribunal considered these incidents to be of a relatively low-level nature. The Tribunal also gave minimal weight to uncorroborated claims of death threats received in Australia and a police complaint concerning threats from an unknown person for an unknown reason. Considering country information, the Tribunal inferred that while societal discrimination and communal violence against Muslims occurred in India, these did not, in the context of the overall Muslim population, present a real chance of the applicant suffering serious harm. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The claims of the wife and son were similarly assessed and found to be unsubstantiated.

Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under either section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The decision under review was affirmed, and the protection visa applications were refused.