2007726 (Refugee)

The applicant, who sought a protection visa, appealed a decision to the Refugee Tribunal. The applicant's claims for protection were based on his previous marriage and divorce in Australia, the subsequent withdrawal of his spouse visa sponsorship by his ex-wife, his current relationship with an Australian citizen and their young child, and concerns about religious stigma, economic hardship, and potential threats from his ex-wife's family upon return to Mauritius. He also presented evidence of an intervention order against him and a criminal record.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant would face persecution or significant harm if returned to Mauritius, specifically considering his claims of religious and social stigma due to his divorce and non-practising Muslim status, the alleged threats from his ex-wife's family, and his economic capacity to subsist in Mauritius. The Tribunal also had to assess the credibility of the applicant's evidence, including inconsistencies and the passage of time since his departure from Mauritius.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence was inconsistent and that his claims of significant harm were not substantiated. It noted that the applicant had lived in Australia for a considerable period, had established a new relationship and family, and had a criminal record and an intervention order against him, which were not considered to be grounds for protection. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that he would be unable to subsist economically in Mauritius or that he would face persecution or significant harm from his ex-wife's family or due to his religious or marital status. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.