1904806 (Refugee)

This matter concerned protection visa applications made by three applicants, identified as Applicant 1, Applicant 2, and Applicant 3. The dispute centred on whether Australia owed protection obligations to these individuals, with Applicant 1, a Nepalese national, claiming to have converted from Hinduism to Christianity and facing persecution in Nepal. Applicant 2 and Applicant 3 are her husband and son, respectively. The case was heard by Peter Papadopoulos, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine if Applicant 1 met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively under complementary protection grounds. The Tribunal also had to consider whether Applicant 3, as a member of Applicant 1's family unit, qualified for a protection visa under section 36(2)(b)(i) of the Act. A further issue was whether Applicant 2 was a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations.

The Tribunal reasoned that Applicant 1 had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, identifying her conversion to Christianity and subsequent ostracisation, harassment, and denial of assistance in Nepal as evidence of this. It was found that she could not avail herself of the protection of Nepal, particularly given the unavailability of police assistance and the community's pressure against her. The Tribunal also considered that relocation within Nepal was not a viable option due to her circumstances as a separated woman with a child and her Dalit caste status, which, combined with her religious conversion, placed her at risk of significant harm. The Tribunal concluded that Applicant 1 satisfied section 36(2)(a) of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Applicant 2 a protection visa, finding that he was not a member of Applicant 1's family unit for the purposes of the Act and had not raised any independent protection claims. However, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with a direction that Applicant 3 satisfied section 36(2)(b)(i) of the Act, based on his membership in the same family unit as Applicant 1.