1901518 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual from India. The applicant claimed to have left his studies due to his involvement as a student supporter of the Jat Andolan (Jat Reservation Movement) and asserted that the situation in his home state of Haryana had worsened, with his family facing police harassment. He feared he would be killed if returned to India. The decision under review affirmed the refusal to grant the visa.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) on complementary protection grounds. This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to India.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion. It noted that the applicant was in Australia during the primary protest activities in 2016 and had not been arrested or charged with any offences prior to his departure in 2014. Credibility concerns were raised regarding inconsistencies in his claims, including his assertion of being detained in 2012, which he had not previously disclosed to the Department. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not meet the criteria under section 36(2)(a) of the Act.