1909057 (Refugee)

The applicants, a married couple and their child, sought a protection visa. Their claim for protection was based on the assertion that they would face persecution in Nepal due to their inter-caste and inter-religious marriage. The dispute centred on whether they met the criteria for a protection visa under Australian law, specifically concerning the risk of significant harm upon removal to Nepal.

The court was required to determine if the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia owed protection obligations. This involved assessing whether they would face a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Nepal, considering their membership in a particular social group defined by their inter-caste and inter-religious marriage. The court also had to consider the credibility of the evidence presented by the applicants, particularly in light of the country information available regarding Nepal's social structure and laws.

The court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicants had not established a real risk of significant harm. While acknowledging the applicants were a married couple with a child, the court found the evidence regarding the extent of societal discrimination and the specific risks they would face upon return to Nepal to be unconvincing. The court noted that the country information indicated Nepal is a multicultural society with growing trends of inter-caste marriages and legal protections for such unions. The evidence provided by the wife was considered credible, but the husband's evidence was found to be vague and sometimes exaggerated. The court also considered that the applicants could potentially reside in India, though they themselves stated that India also experiences similar caste and religious disputes. The court concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated they would face persecution or significant harm that would engage Australia's protection obligations.