1832305 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa applications of two applicants who claimed to fear persecution in India. Initially, the applicants claimed they faced harm due to a "love marriage" contracted against their families' wishes. However, approximately six years after lodging their applications, they abandoned these claims and asserted that their fear of harm stemmed from their conversion from Hinduism to Christianity.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether, based on the accepted evidence, either applicant qualified for protection under Australian law. This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility of the applicants' claims and determine if they faced a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm in India due to their religious conversion.

The Tribunal found significant credibility concerns with the applicants' claims. It noted that the applicants had initially provided false information regarding their identities and visa applications, and had also changed their stated grounds for seeking protection. While the Tribunal accepted that the applicants had been baptised and engaged in Christian worship, it was not satisfied that the country information presented established a real risk of harm to them specifically arising from their conversion to Christianity. The Tribunal considered various reports regarding religious minorities in India but concluded that these did not demonstrate a sufficient risk to the applicants, particularly as they were not from vulnerable communities or regions highlighted in the reports, and the alleged persecution was not sufficiently substantiated by the evidence.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicants did not have a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm in India. Consequently, Australia did not have protection obligations towards them.