1820563 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual who claimed to be the first Muslim convert to the Jehovah's Witness faith in India. The applicant feared harm upon return to India from Muslims and his own family due to his conversion, and from Hindus due to his Christian faith. The case was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to India, such that Australia would have protection obligations towards him. This required an assessment of the general country information regarding religious freedom and persecution in India, specifically concerning Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses, and an evaluation of the applicant's individual circumstances and the plausibility of his fears. A further issue was whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to another area within India to avoid any potential risk.

The Tribunal considered extensive country information from sources including the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, and reports on religious violence. While acknowledging a rise in Hindu nationalism and documented incidents of discrimination and violence against Christians in certain regions of India, the Tribunal found that there was a lack of recent documented incidents of persecution specifically targeting Jehovah's Witnesses across India. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's specific fear of harm from his family and the Muslim community due to his conversion, finding it plausible that he might face shame-related harm in his home region. However, the Tribunal concluded that it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to Bangalore, Karnataka, a city with a significant Jehovah's Witness presence and where there was a relative lack of recent reported attacks against Christians. The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's proficiency in English and other personal factors made relocation practicable.

Based on its assessment of the country information and the reasonableness of relocation, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to India. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.