1900931 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a woman from India. The applicant claimed she converted from Hinduism to Shia Islam upon marrying her Pakistani husband and that she could not live in India due to threats from her family and community, as well as the social unacceptability of an Indian woman marrying a Pakistani man. She also claimed she could not live in Pakistan due to persecution and threats from religious groups and neighbours, and that Pakistani authorities had been unhelpful and harassing. The case was heard by the Tribunal.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a refugee under the Act, and if not, whether she was entitled to complementary protection. This required the Tribunal to assess the real risk of significant harm the applicant might face if returned to India, considering the availability of protection from Indian authorities. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's claims regarding persecution in Pakistan and the specific circumstances of her mixed-faith marriage and conversion.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the evidence, including country information reports. It applied the principle that a real risk of significant harm is not taken to exist if the applicant could obtain protection from the country's authorities, such that the risk is reduced to something less than a 'real risk', as per *MIAC v MZYYL* [2012] FCAFC 147. The Tribunal also had regard to Ministerial Direction No. 84, the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', and 'Complementary Protection Guidelines'. After reviewing the applicant's background and claims, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.