1910858 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an Indian male and his wife. The applicants claimed that the husband, originally from a Sikh family, had converted to Christianity. They feared that if returned to India, they would face harm from their community and family due to this conversion, particularly after the husband posted articles on social media concerning the persecution of Christians. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants had established a genuine fear of persecution.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the first applicant's claimed conversion to Christianity was genuine. This was central to the applicants' claim that they would face significant harm if returned to India, as their fear was predicated on the husband's religious conversion and subsequent actions. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion, which allows for the grant of a visa if there are substantial grounds for believing that a real risk of significant harm will be suffered as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' claims of harm were based on the alleged conversion to Christianity. While a baptism certificate was accepted as valid, the Tribunal expressed doubt regarding the genuineness of the conversion. This doubt arose from the applicant's inconsistent accounts of when and why he converted, and his lack of effort in seeking out Punjabi Christian services in Australia, despite claiming language barriers as a reason for limited church attendance. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's wife had assisted with his visa application, suggesting a readily available means to seek assistance in finding services. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's narrative lacked consistency and credibility, leading to the affirmation of the decision under review.