2011352 (Refugee)

The applicants, nationals of India, sought protection visas. Their claims were based on alleged persecution due to their political opinions as members of the Congress Party, which they asserted led to attacks on their business and physical assault by members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). They also contended that they could not access effective state protection in India.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) in India, or, alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to India, they faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, as defined by section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the applicants' claims in light of the statutory requirements for protection visas, including the onus on the applicant to establish their case with sufficient evidence. It noted that mere assertion of fear does not equate to a well-founded fear or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal found that the applicants had provided credible personal details and were nationals of India. However, after reviewing the evidence and applying the relevant legal principles, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under either section 36(2)(a) (refugee status) or section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, as they failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for such visas.