1932478 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Nepal, sought a protection visa in Australia. The dispute concerned whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under the *Refugees Convention* or complementary protection grounds. The matter came before the Tribunal for review following a remittal from the Federal Circuit Court.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of his homosexuality or political opinion, or whether there was a real risk of significant harm if he were returned to Nepal, thereby engaging Australia's protection obligations. The applicant claimed he feared persecution from the Maoists due to his homosexuality and alleged he was forced into a marriage with a woman, which he concealed while maintaining a homosexual relationship.

The Tribunal considered the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and Schedule 2 of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), including the definition of a refugee under the *Refugees Convention* and the grounds for complementary protection. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had previously applied for and been refused a protection visa, with the refusal affirmed by the Tribunal and the Federal Circuit Court on earlier occasions. The most recent remittal by the Federal Circuit Court was based on the previous Tribunal's failure to adequately engage with the evidence of the applicant's then-partner. Despite efforts to ascertain if the applicant's relationship with his partner continued and if the partner would provide evidence, no response was received by the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.