1923463 (Refugee)

The applicant, who arrived in Australia in May 2016, sought a protection visa. The applicant's claims for protection were based on allegations that four individuals with political connections and criminal backgrounds were threatening his family in India, seeking to seize their residence, and threatening to kill them if they did not vacate. The applicant asserted that he could not seek protection within India due to the alleged connections of these individuals.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution as a refugee, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant's claims lacked substance and detail. The applicant had been given an opportunity to provide further information regarding the threats and the events leading to his departure from India, as well as evidence to support his claims and demonstrate how any harm would be personal to him, but failed to do so. The court also noted concerns about the applicant's credibility, particularly in relation to his claim of unemployment since May 2016 and his failure to provide details on how he supported himself financially in Australia, which raised serious concerns that he was working in breach of his visa conditions. The court was satisfied that these claims were put forward to remain in Australia for purposes unrelated to protection obligations and found the applicant not to be a witness of truth.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant. The applicant therefore did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa, nor could he satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c). The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.