2008272 (Refugee)

The Tribunal considered the application for a protection visa made by a woman, her husband, and their Australian-born daughter. The applicants, who are Indian citizens, claimed they feared harm upon return to India due to the woman's conversion from Hinduism to Sikhism following an inter-religious marriage. They alleged that her family and community opposed the marriage, that her family's political connections would provide impunity for any harm inflicted, and that authorities would not offer protection. The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically concerning the risk of significant harm upon return to India and the eligibility of their Australian-born child.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicants faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia, as contemplated by section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing the credibility of the applicants' claims regarding their religious conversion, the opposition from their families and community, the alleged impunity of their family due to political links, and the likelihood of protection from Indian authorities. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider whether the third applicant, an Australian citizen, could be granted a protection visa, given that such visas are only available to non-citizens.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. It found that the third applicant, being an Australian citizen, did not meet the criterion of being a non-citizen in Australia and was therefore ineligible for a protection visa. While the Tribunal acknowledged the applicants' claims of religious persecution and fear of honour killing due to their inter-religious marriage, it ultimately concluded that the evidence presented did not establish a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the applicants' evidence and credibility issues, which led to the affirmation of the original decision.