1908519 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration's decision to refuse a Protection (Class XA) Subclass 866 visa. The applicant, an adult male of Indian ethnicity and Sikh faith, claimed he could not return to India due to being sued by a lawyer following an assault involving the applicant's friends, which he witnessed. The applicant had a complex migration history in Australia, including multiple visa applications and refusals, and had applied for the protection visa on 24 October 2018.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or membership of a particular social group or political opinion, or if there were substantial grounds to believe that removal from Australia would result in a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal was also required to consider whether it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate within India to an area where such a risk would not exist, as per s.36(2B)(a) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and country information assessments. It applied the principles established in *SZATV v MIAC* and *SZFDV v MIAC*, which dictate that the reasonableness of relocation depends on the applicant's specific circumstances and the impact of relocation. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa), nor was he a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfied those criteria.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.