1930330 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an Indian citizen who claimed to fear persecution due to a land dispute and threats from members of the Akali Dal. The applicant alleged that the dispute began with a neighbour who encroached on his family's land, leading to threats of violence and physical assault. He further claimed that the police took no action and that his family continued to receive threats, including an attack on him. The applicant also asserted that his family could not relocate within India due to financial constraints and the pervasive influence of the Akali Dal and associated groups. The decision was made by Genevieve Hamilton, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether he would be owed protection obligations by Australia. This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or if he was owed complementary protection. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of the provisions of section 36(2B) of the Act, which outlines circumstances where Australia does not have complementary protection obligations, including the availability of reasonable internal relocation, the possibility of obtaining protection from national authorities, or if the risk faced is general to the population.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence and the relevant country information, including guidelines and assessments prepared by government departments. It applied the principles of section 36(2B) of the Act, which preclude protection obligations if it is reasonable for the applicant to relocate within their country of origin to an area where they would not face significant harm, or if they could obtain protection from the authorities of that country. The Tribunal also considered whether the risk faced by the applicant was personal or general to the population. After evaluating the claims and evidence, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria set out in section 36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. As a result, the applicant was also unable to satisfy the criteria in section 36(2)(b) or (c), meaning the visa could not be granted. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant protection visas.