1903495 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indian national, sought review of a decision to refuse him a protection visa. He claimed to fear harm in India from his ex-wife's former husband, alleging past physical attacks. The applicant had a complex migration history in Australia, including previous visa refusals and applications for partner visas, and had also disclosed a criminal history in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(b) or (c) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required the Tribunal to determine 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, and whether Australia had protection obligations towards him. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's credibility and the delay in his application for protection.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims of harm were not sufficiently detailed or substantiated to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. It noted inconsistencies and a lack of specific instances of harm beyond general allegations. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the applicant's criminal history in Australia and the fact that he had not provided evidence that his conduct was not engaged in for the purpose of strengthening his protection claim, as required by section 5J(6) of the Act. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that he was unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of India due to 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 satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act.