2011746 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1755

2011746 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1755 (9 JULY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2011746

Tribunal:General Member C Dutkowski
Date:9 July 2025

Place:Sydney
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

Statement made on 09 July 2025 at 12:45pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – India – particular social group – inter-caste marriage – political opinion – BJP supporter – threats from Congress Party members – physical assault – fear of honour killing – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 359, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 2 July 2020 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants, who the Tribunal accepts to be nationals of India, applied for the visas on 1 May 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visas because they found the first named applicant’s claims (upon which the second named applicant relied) to be not credible.
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 10 June 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing took place via video link. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicants were given a reasonable and meaningful opportunity to present their case, make submissions and adduce evidence. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Telugu and English languages.
BACKGROUND
The first named applicant is [an age]-year-old man from Bangalore. The second named applicant is [an age]-year-old woman, also from Bangalore, and is the wife of the first named applicant. The applicants married in India [in] July 2018.
The applicants arrived in Australia [in] February 2019.
The applicants have two children together: a daughter, born in [specified year], and a son, born in [year]. The Tribunal has no information on file concerning the visa status of these children. When asked about this at the hearing, the applicants advised their daughter has a bridging visa. In any event, the Tribunal does not have before it any reviewable decision in relation to either child. As explained to the applicants, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make any decision in relation to their children.
The Department’s file, which was sent to the Tribunal, contains an email dated 28 June 2020 from the applicants which refers to an email from the Department, and states: ‘Please be advised that I have not been found guilty on any of the charges yet, as the case is still before the court in early stage, so could you defer your notice of intention to consider cancellation until court hears my case.’ As noted by the delegate in their decision record, this email appears to be a response to a cancellation notification for a different visa type. The Tribunal’s file also contains an email from the applicants attaching a Bail Acknowledgement in relation to the first named applicant, indicting he had been granted bail and was required to attend local court on July 2020 relation to several sexual related offences.
In order to determine the appropriate location for a hearing, the Tribunal wrote to the Department in May 2025 querying the visa status of the first named applicant and outcome of his criminal matter. The Department advised that the first named applicant was onshore unlawfully and was convicted and sentenced to a Community Correction Order for a period of 2 years that commenced [in] April 2022.
As put to the applicants during the hearing, the Tribunal is of the view that the information about the first named applicant’s criminal history is not relevant to the Tribunal’s assessment of whether the applicants are owed protection obligations. The Tribunal provided the applicants an opportunity to comment. The first named applicant asked if the Tribunal would take the information into account. The Tribunal explained its understanding that the first named applicant’s protection claims related to politics and therefore the criminal convictions were irrelevant to the protection application and would not be considered at all. The first named applicant responded ‘ok’.
The Tribunal has completely disregarded the criminal history information in making this decision. The first named applicant’s unlawful status also has no relevance to the protection visa application, and this has been completely disregarded by the Tribunal.
Evidence before the Department
The applicants’ protection visa application indicated that the first named applicant was making their own protection claims, while the second named applicant was not. The first named applicant wrote that the reason he left India was:
I have been a supporter of the BJP political party in India for 8 years. I support the BJP political party. I accompanied BJP party contestants door to door during the past State and Central election voting campaigns, despite the Congress party members' and supporters' threats and warnings that I should stop supporting the BJP or else I would be harmed. In April 2019, while I was in Australia, Congress party members and supporters went to my home and asked my parents about my whereabouts. When my parents told them that I was overseas, the Congress party members and supporters threatened my parents that I should not support the BJP during the BJP voting campaign in this election, which is going on now. If I were at home when they came, the Congress party members and supporters would have harmed me for support I had given to the BJP in past election campaigns. I would not be safe anywhere else in India because the Congress party is the main opposition party and has branches throughout India. I would be at risk in any part of India due to my support for the BJP and opposition to the Congress Party, even in Karnataka where the Congress Party is strong. I cannot seek protection from the Indian authorities or the police, because the Congress party is the ruling party in Karnataka State.
Additionally, in response to a question about whether he had experienced harm in India, he answered ‘yes’ and said the harm was ‘threats and warnings’, and in response to a question about what he thinks would happen if he returned to India, he said ‘threats, warnings, assault and physical harm’.
The first named applicant attended an interview with the delegate on 22 June 2020. The Tribunal has listened to the recording of that interview. The delegate’s decision summarises the claims and evidence given at that interview, including:
·His father alternated his political allegiance between the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress (INC). Due to his father’s involvement in politics, the first named applicant and his family were threatened, and the first named applicant was personally beaten on two occasions. The first beating occurred in approximately 2012 or 2013, and the second occurred in 2018.
·He supported the BJP during election campaigns prior to 2014. In December 2014, he travelled to [Country 1] and then to [Country 2] where he remained until April or May 2018. Following his departure from [Country 2], he travelled to a number of countries in [a specified region] and then returned to India in May or June 2018. He remained in India until his departure to Australia in February 2019.
·In April 2019, when he was in Australia, supporters of the INC attended his family home looking for him.
The delegate refused to grant the visas on 2 July 2020.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The applicants applied for review on 16 July 2020.
On 30 January 2025, the Tribunal asked the applicants to complete and return to the Tribunal a ‘pre-hearing information form’. The applicants returned this form on 3 February 2025 and the first named applicant indicated he would provide additional information in relation to his protection claims during the hearing.
On 22 May 2025, the Tribunal invited the applicants to a hearing scheduled on 10 June 2025. On 28 May 2025, the Tribunal received an email from the first named applicant which stated: ‘I was unwell. My children was unwell. My child has heavy cough was in the emergency hospital two days back. My child again not well. I request you to consider a new hearing day.’ Attached to this email were a number of documents, including a referral letter from [Doctor A] to [Doctor B] dated 22 May 2025 in relation to the management of the first named applicant’s [medical condition 1]; a script for ointment for the first named applicant; an invoice from [Doctor A]; hospital discharge notes in relation to the applicants’ son indicating he had attended hospital on 24 May 2025 with [medical condition 2], and was discharged home with advice about [medical condition 2]; a NSW Government factsheet about [medical condition 2]; scripts for [treatment] for the applicants’ daughter dated 18 May 2025 and 26 May 2025; and screenshots of transactions to a number of merchants including chemists.
On 28 May 2025, the Tribunal advised the applicants that it declined to postpone the scheduled hearing. The applicants then confirmed they would attend. As explained during the hearing, the evidence indicated that the first named applicant had been unwell with [medical condition 1] at the time of the hearing invitation, and that the applicants’ son had also been unwell with [medical condition 2] around the same time. The information also suggests their daughter was taking medication. However, the hearing was not scheduled until 10 June 2025, which was two and a half weeks after the date of the hearing invitation, and the information did not suggest the applicants would be unable to attend on that date. Early in the hearing, the Tribunal asked if the applicants were able to proceed with the hearing. They indicated their children had a cough or cold, and the first named applicant said he was having some pain, but confirmed they were fine to proceed.
At all times during the hearing the Tribunal observed the applicants to be engaged and responsive, with no suggestion that their ability to give evidence and present arguments was in any way impaired.
The Tribunal took oral evidence from the second named applicant first, while the first named applicant departed the room. The Tribunal then asked the first named applicant to return and both applicants were present. The applicants’ oral evidence at hearing is discussed below in the Tribunal’s reasons and findings.
After the hearing, the Tribunal sent the applicants an invitation, under s 359A of the Act, to comment on certain information which it considered would, subject to their comment, be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. The content of this invitation is discussed below in the Tribunal’s reasons and findings.
On 24 June 2025, the applicants responded to the s 359A invitation with written submissions (the content of which are discussed below in the Tribunal’s reasons and findings) and several documents, including:
·A Certificate of Registration of Hindu marriage issued by the Government of Karnataka concerning the applicants’ marriage [in] July 2018 and registration of marriage [later in] July 2018;
·A letter dated [in] June 2025 from [a named priest] from the [Temple 1], which states that he is a Hindu priest and temple leader. It states that the applicants arrived [in] July 2018 to seek shelter (temple) assistance and that they gave an explanation for their situation, stating that they were out of the house at the time due to an honour low caste marriage, and informed him that the second named applicant’s parents severely abused and threatened ‘[the applicants] by parents’. It says he therefore gave them permission to remain on the temple grounds for roughly four months.
·A medical certificate dated 18 June 2025 by [a named doctor] from the [Hospital 1], which states: ‘This is to certify that [the applicant] age [age] years male, residing at [Address 1], Karnataka. He was examined and treated by me on [a day in] November 2018, following an assault that occurred on [that day]. The patient reported being attacked by a group of men, resulting in physical injuries. Based on the clinical examination and investigations conducted, it is my professional opinion that the patient is suffering from the following medical conditions: [conditions listed], and signs of trauma or distress caused by the attack. Treatment given: wound care, first aid, TD injection, hospitalisation for 2 days and medication for 5 days.’
·Several documents relating to the second named applicant’s pregnancy and miscarriage in 2018, including a referral from [a named health service] dated [date]; an obstetric sonography report dated [date]; a radiologist report dated [date]; and several ultrasound pictures;
·A picture of two men, one of which is the first named applicant, and the other which the applicants’ have labelled as BJP candidate [Candidate A].
·A card issued by the BJP stating the name ‘[Father A]’, the state of Karnataka, and a membership number (partially identified). The first named applicant indicated this was his father.
·An e-stamp issued by the Government of Karnataka [in] June 2025 in relation to a purchase by [Father A] (the first named applicant’s father) in relation to an ‘Article 2(B) administration bond. It does not contain any substantive evidence, and the applicants did not provide any explanation as to why it was included. The Tribunal gives it neutral weight.
·An undated letter from [Father A] (the first named applicant’s father) with the subject ‘intercaste marriage’. It states: ‘I am writing as the father of [the applicant]. [Applicant 2’s] and family parents have repeatedly threatened and assaulted my son and [Applicant 2] due to their intercaste (love) marriage. Opposition party people have also threatened, beaten targeted him. [The applicants] left, these groups continue to harass me at my home and workplace. Opposition party members have approached me, questioning the whereabouts of my son and [Applicant 2] warning that they will expose him if he returns. Similarly, [Applicant 2’s] family parents have come to my home and church, plotting against us. Her parents, opposed to their intercaste marriage, have threatened harm, labelling it as an issue of ‘honor’. They’ve even shared [the applicants’] details and photos on social media to target him and her. Despite this, we remain resolute. Authorities are still searching for both individuals, including my son [the applicant]. Due to safety concerns, I told them not to return here, as opposition members and [Applicant 2’s] family parents may threaten, assault, or even attempt to kill them. This dangerous situation has unfolded locally.’
·An invitation to a wedding, with a copy translated into English (not accredited), which states it was between [two names], [in] June 2018.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Criteria for protection visa
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
REASONS AND FINDINGS
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The applicants’ protection claims have evolved over the course of the lodgement of their application and the Tribunal hearing. At a broad level, the applicants have consistently claimed to fear persecution for political reasons relating to the first named applicant. However, the nature of the political claims, including the political parties and candidates supported and whether the harm suffered was because of the first named applicant’s activities or those of his father, varied considerably between the protection visa application, delegate interview, and the evidence given to the Tribunal. The applicants also claimed, to the Tribunal only, that they had suffered harm from the second named applicant’s family because of their marriage and because the first named applicant was from a lower caste.
The Tribunal acknowledges country information indicates that inter-caste marriages can result in harm being inflicted by the families involved. DFAT advises:[1]
3.136 Interfaith and inter-caste marriages are legal and occur occasionally, however many Indian families still prefer marriages arranged within their own religion and caste. Most marriages in India are arranged marriages and the family of the prospective marriage partner will choose a spouse based on faith and caste considerations. A marriage outside this system is known as a ‘love marriage’. Those who choose to marry outside their religion or caste may experience shunning or violence from their families, but the outcome depends on the family and there is not a typical pattern of reactions. An inter-caste or interfaith marriage will not necessarily lead to violence, but it can.
…
3.138 Forms of possible family harassment can vary. Honour crimes including acid attacks and homicides are a possibility. While these crimes are mostly associated with violence against women (and are described in the relevant section of this report) they can be perpetrated against men, especially in cases of interfaith and inter-caste marriage. In one case in Karnataka, parents harassed the couple by making missing person claims to police alongside threats. Others have reported being physically detained or locked up by their families, or hiding for fear that their families will find and kill them.
…
3.142 DFAT assesses the treatment of people in interfaith and inter-caste marriages varies according to the families involved. It can range from approval in some families, to disapproval, ostracism, harassment, or violence.
[1] DFAT Country Information Report India, 29 September 2023.

However, as the above demonstrates, the treatment of people in an inter-caste marriage depends on the families involved. Therefore, the credibility of the applicants’ claims is critical to the Tribunal’s assessment.
In relation to political opinion, DFAT describes India as having a vibrant political culture. It advises, for instance:[2]
3.76 Political diversity and robust debate are part of the fabric of Indian society. Freedom House, in its 2022 Freedom in the World report, notes that ‘personal expression and private discussion in India have long been open and free’. India has a very large and diverse media landscape with a range of different views expressed.
3.77 Parts of the Indian media landscape tend towards sensationalism, especially television. Open-source material, such as media, may give a skewed view of the extent or nature of events. Indian political discourse is passionate and robust, however is usually peaceful. Elections are frequent occurrences nationwide as state governments hold elections at different times. When violence does occur, it attracts significant media analysis but most elections occur without any violence at all. Where violence does occur, it is typically low level and isolated. The potential for violence does not appear to dampen appetite for engagement in politics and does not apparently reduce voter turnout.
…
3.88 India’s vibrant political culture also extends to elections in the states. The culture between states generally differs with different language groups and local issues. Like Indian politics at national level, state politics is hotly contested and media coverage can be sensationalist, however day-to-day politics is usually peaceful, and when violence does occur, it is unlikely to be one-sided. The risk of violence associated with elections varies significantly between states, with notable examples of violence in West Bengal, Tripura and Uttar Pradesh. For context, Uttar Pradesh has a population of over 200 million people, larger than almost every nation on earth. The vast majority of residents do not experience day-to-day political violence.
[2] DFAT Country Information Report India, 29 September 2023.
While this information indicates that political violence is typically low-level and isolated, it does not exclude the possibility.
The Tribunal has extensive concerns about the credibility of the applicants’ claims, both in relation to having faced past harm and fearing future harm for political reasons and due to their marriage. For the reasons explained below, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicants were ever harmed or threatened in India because of the first named applicant’s (or his father’s) political involvement, and nor does the Tribunal accept that they were harmed or threatened by the second named applicant’s family because of their marriage.
Political claims
The first named applicant wrote in the protection visa application that he left India because he supports the BJP and had accompanied BJP party contestants door to door during the past State and Central election voting campaigns, despite the Congress party members' and supporters' threats and warnings that he should stop supporting the BJP or else he would be harmed. He claimed that in April 2019, Congress party members and supporters went to his home and asked his parents about his whereabouts, and when his parents told them he was overseas, they threatened his parents that he should not support the BJP during the (then) current election. He said that the harm he had experienced in India was ‘threats and warnings’, and that he feared he would experience ‘threats, warnings, assault and physical harm’ if he returned to India. He did not claim to have already experienced harm apart from threats or warnings.
The first named applicant’s written claims therefore related only to his support of the BJP and having experienced threats and warnings in India.
At the interview with the delegate, however, the first named applicant told the delegate that his father alternated his political allegiance between the BJP and the INC, and that as a result of his father’s involvement in these political parties, he and his family were threatened, and the first named applicant was personally beaten and threatened on two occasions by supporters of the opposition political party in approximately 2012 or 2013 and 2018. As recorded in the delegate’s decision, he stated that did not know the reason his father alternated support between political parties and he did not know what his father’s role/s were with the political parties. In addition, he stated that he did not know the reason his father was of interest to supporters of opposition parties, and when pressed on the reasons he did not have any information about his father’s political involvement, he stated that he asked his father, but his father didn’t give him details and added that he respected his father. In relation to the beating in 2012 or 2013, the applicant told the delegate that he was with his father and close to the family when he was beaten and threatened by unknown individuals, and then said that the individuals who beat him told him to carry a message to his father. In relation to the 2018 beating, the applicant stated that four or five unknown individuals approached him and beat him in approximately October or November. He did not know which political party these individuals were affiliated with and did not know the reason he was specifically targeted.
When asked by the delegate about his own political involvement, the first named applicant said he commenced supporting the BJP when he was 21 or 22 years old. He gave some information about the support he provided the BJP, including delivering groceries and other goods, holding the flag and canvassing votes for the BJP. When asked by the delegate which election he had helped with, he said he was not able to remember exactly but it was maybe in 2013. He stated that he canvassed votes on behalf of [Candidate B]. The delegate put to the first named applicant that in the 2013 state elections, [Candidate B] was a candidate for the INC and not the BJP, and that [Candidate B] switched allegiance to the BJP in 2019. In response, the first named applicant stated that he did not know if [Candidate B] was a candidate for the BJP or INC but that he supported him.
At the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal asked the first named applicant about his involvement with the BJP. He said he was a supporter helping the party out. He said he did so from about 2012 or 2013. The Tribunal queried how he became involved. The first named applicant said that his father was a BJP member. The Tribunal asked if his father was a member in 2012/2013 and he replied that he was a member even before that. The Tribunal asked if his father was still a member now, and the first named applicant said he was not. He said he stopped being involved in their affairs because of his health, but that he still gives some help to the party today if able.
The Tribunal asked if his father had experienced any problems from the INC. The first named applicant did not respond to this question, instead saying his father didn’t take any sides, and would help whoever gave him food, drink and money. The Tribunal sought to clarify which party or parties his father gave help to. The first named applicant said it was the BJP. The Tribunal then reiterated the question about whether his father had previously or currently experienced any problems from the INC. The applicant responded yes. When asked for more detail, the first named applicant said that his father has threats from them but because knows many people, they help him. When he was at home, they would hit his son and threaten his son, but don’t do anything to him. He said his father has a problem, but he would be in more trouble if the first named applicant was there.
The Tribunal asked the first named applicant if his evidence was that he was the target, rather than his father. The first named applicant said yes, and when the Tribunal asked why, he described putting banners and posters on walls, and them being ripped off and burned and putting them up again, after which the problems increased. The Tribunal asked when this happened – when did the problems happen? He responded that it was every election. When asked which elections, he said in 2013, but it was happening even before that. The Tribunal then asked again about the first named applicant’s father – was he ever threatened or attacked? The first named applicant said that his father also has threats. Asked if there were any incidents where he and his father were attacked, he said that once, he and his father went to a wedding, ‘and they came and thrashed us’. The first named applicant said they beat him, they hit him, they kidnapped him and troubled him a lot. The Tribunal asked who ‘they’ were and he said it was opposite party people. The Tribunal asked if this was at the wedding or after it. He said it was not his wedding but someone else’s. A religious family. The Tribunal asked how he knew the family and he said it was their relatives. The first named applicant said the wedding was in 2018, after he returned from [Country 2], and he and his father went there. The Tribunal asked if his father was with him when he was beaten. He said his father was not; the first named applicant went to the toilet and they beat him and left him behind. The Tribunal sought to clarify if his father was beaten too, as originally suggested by the first named applicant, and the applicant said his father asked him who beat him and why but he did not tell his father anything. The Tribunal queried why not, and the first named applicant said if he did, it would become a big problem. The Tribunal indicated it might have trouble understanding why that would be the case, and the applicant said now that several people had come and hit him, if he told his father the problem will become bigger.
Reflecting on the above, the Tribunal considers the first named applicant’s evidence at hearing to have emphasised his role in supporting the BJP, and him being the victim of attacks by the INC primarily because of his role, rather than his father. His oral evidence was about his father having faced threats, and indicated the applicant tried to distance his father from his problems by not telling him about who beat him and why, to avoid his father being in more trouble (for reasons the Tribunal considers vague).
In contrast, his evidence to the delegate contained more emphasis on his father’s role in politics and the effect this had on the first named applicant, including the first named applicant being beaten in 2012 or 2013 because of his father’s involvement (which he was not able to tell the delegate details about because his father would not tell him about it). His evidence to the delegate also concerned his father alternating support between the BJP and INC, which the first named applicant did not suggest to the Tribunal at hearing.
When the Tribunal raised, during the hearing, the inconsistences in the first named applicant’s evidence with regard to his father’s history, he said that when he was living in [Country 2], his father was in the BJP, but later on for money, his father changed to Congress, and when the applicant came back to India, he moved back to the BJP. He was with Congress in 2018 and after that changed back to the BJP. While the applicant has therefore sought to explain that his father did swap allegiance for a brief period, the Tribunal remains concerned that the applicant did not raise with the Tribunal that his father had swapped parties until the Tribunal prompted him. The Tribunal has noted the first named applicant’s evidence, as outlined earlier, when asked if his father had experienced any problems from the INC, that his father didn’t take any sides and would help whoever gave him food, drink and money, which could indicate that his father was aligned with multiple parties, but in that same exchange, the Tribunal sought to clarify which party or parties his father gave help to and he said it was the BJP.
After the hearing, the Tribunal also put to the first named applicant, under s 359A, the following:
You told the Tribunal that your father was a BJP member from before 2012 (when you started helping the party) and although he is not a member now, he still gives some help to them when he can. You also told the Tribunal that while he had threats and trouble from Congress, they targeted you rather than your father. However, you told the Departmental delegate that your father alternated his political allegiance between the BJP and the INC and that as a result of this, he (and you as part of his family) was subjected to beatings and threats from both parties. You also told the Departmental delegate that you did not know what role your father had in the parties (and did not claim that he was a BJP member).
This information is relevant to the review because you have given inconsistent evidence about your father’s political involvement and the harm that he was subjected to, and who inflicted that harm. It is also relevant because you told the Tribunal your father had been a BJP member, whereas you were not able to tell the delegate anything about his political role.
If the Tribunal relies on this information in making its decision, it may lead the Tribunal to find that your father was not involved in politics in any capacity, and was not harmed by anyone for political reasons, and that you were also not harmed by anyone because of your father’s political activities…
The first named applicant responded:
Our family, including my father, has been Congress supporters for three generations. However, when Atal Bhai Vajapayee became prime minister of India, his work and culture, along with his nationalism and Hindutva ideologies, caused my father to shift his political views. He has backed the BJP in state and national MLA and MP elections since 1996, although he supports local body elections regardless of the party to preserve harmony. Both parties are becoming red-eyed over this. In both the 2013 and 2018 elections, we backed [Candidate A], who ran for the BJP. However, he failed to prevail. [Candidate B] was the victorious candidate on both times. When [Candidate B] switched his party in 2019 from the Congress to the BJP, my father was furious. Thus, my father has adversaries in both political parties. He experienced multiple panic attacks and threats. Since he was not vying for any office of authority, he was also not a party member. He has friends and well-wishers at every gathering, and since he works as a farmer and doesn’t want haters, he wanted harmony and tranquillity in the community. As you enquire about his role and status inside the BJP, you may verify that he is an official party member and party worker. I’m giving you his membership information. He is a very polite individual. As you may know, we were in favour of [Candidate B], but that is untrue. We backed [Candidate A], who was a BJP candidate. For your reference, I can send you a picture I took while canvassing.
His response suggests his father switched from Congress to the BJP since at least 1996. The Tribunal notes this is the first time this has been put forward and it was many years before the issues taking place in 2012/2013 and 2018. The applicant also appears to be suggesting his father’s adversaries partly spawned from the switch of [Candidate B] from Congress to the BJP in 2019, but this was after the harm inflicted upon the applicant (and his father), in 2012/2013 and 2018. The first named applicant also wrote his father supports local body elections regardless of the party, but this is vague. It is unclear from the first named applicant’s response, and the overall body of evidence, what this looked like in practice or why it had implications for his father’s safety.
Furthermore, the response lacks coherency and clarity in that he said his father was ‘not a party member’, but then also says he is ‘an official party member and party worker’. The first named applicant attached a copy of a BJP membership card belonging to his father. The Tribunal recalls that the first named applicant told the delegate he wasn’t aware what involvement his father had in political parties. He then told the Tribunal during the hearing that his father had been a member of the BJP for some time, including before 2012, but was not a member anymore because of his health.
The Tribunal is significantly concerned about the applicant’s unclear and changing evidence about the nature of his father’s involvement in politics, including whether and when he was a member of the BJP, the extent to which (if at all) his father was ever harmed, and the extent of the connection between the harm to the first named applicant and his father’s involvement. These concerns cause the Tribunal to doubt that the first named applicant’s father was ever involved in politics, for any party, at any time, and that the first named applicant (or his father) was ever threatened or harmed because of these associations. While the Tribunal has had regard to the membership card, the Tribunal affords it little weight. The other evidence is, in the Tribunal’s view, overwhelmingly unclear and shifting.
While the Tribunal recognises the first named applicant’s written visa application did, like his oral evidence at hearing, talk about him having had involvement in supporting the BJP during elections, the Tribunal finds it concerning that the written application only indicated he had experienced threats and warnings, not other harm. His evidence to the delegate, and to the Tribunal, instead contained claims about numerous attacks carried out upon the first named applicant. And in relation to the claims about politically motivated attacks, the Tribunal also regards the first named applicant’s evidence to have been shifting, unclear and inconsistent.
For instance, these included, as told to the delegate, a beating in approximately in 2012 or 2013 where he was told to carry a message to his father, and another in October or November 2018. When asked about incidents of harm during the hearing, the applicant spoke about being beaten at a relative’s wedding which took place between returning from [Country 2] (April or May 2018) and getting married himself (July 2018). When asked if anything happened to him in 2012 or 2013, he said that they beat and harassed him at the time of the 2013 election. Asked why that happened to him, he said he was helping the BJP with going door to door and telling people the BJP would help with roads and electricity, and he was in party clothes and with the party flag. The Tribunal is prepared to accept the first named applicant was at a wedding in June 2018, noting the wedding invitation, however this evidence is not probative of the first named applicant having been beaten during that event. The Tribunal found the first named applicant’s oral evidence about this claim to have lacked clarity, and his reasons for claiming that he didn’t tell his father who beat him and why to have been vague and lacking in plausibility.
After the hearing the Tribunal put, under s 359A, numerous particulars of information about the first named applicant’s political activities, harm and threats, including:
You told the Tribunal you were harmed by Congress people sometime between returning from [Country 2] and your own wedding in July 2018 while you were at a relative’s wedding. However, you did not tell the delegate about this incident, and instead only told them about a beating in October or November 2018 where you were attacked by unknown individuals.
This information is relevant to the review because you have given inconsistent evidence about the harm you suffered in 2018. It is also relevant because while you claimed that there was an attack in October or November 2018, you told the Tribunal that you were living in a temple in hiding (and not harmed there) and did not leave the temple until a few days before coming to Australia (in February 2019).
If the Tribunal relies on this information in making its decision, it may lead the Tribunal to find that you were not attacked by anyone from Congress nor any other political party in 2018 nor 2019 nor ever…

The response to this was that the first named applicant did campaigning in 2018 after returning from [Country 2] and that he told the delegate ‘I was close to my family and my father but didn’t ask me where you went. Because that I didn’t mention I was in my relative wedding. During wedding day I were got threatened and harassed and harm from opposition supporters’. He provided the wedding invitation (mentioned above by the Tribunal). The Tribunal has considered this response but does not consider claims about being close to his family and not being asked, to explain his failure to mention this significant attack to the delegate.
Also put under s 359A was the following:
You told the Tribunal that you engaged in door-to-door campaign work in 2018 (as well as in 2013). However, when asked by the Departmental delegate which election you were helping with, you said you couldn’t remember exactly but it was maybe 2013.
This information is relevant to the review because you did not tell the delegate that you had assisted with elections in 2018.
If the Tribunal relies on this information in making its decision, it may lead the Tribunal to find that you did not assist the BJP in election campaigning activities in 2018 or in any other capacity…
The response was: ‘In 2018 Karnataka Legislative Assembly election during this time the first named applicant supported for BJP honestly that he door to door campaign work in 2018 as well as in 2013. With the candidate [Candidate A] and BJP supporters did campaigning in 2018’. The Tribunal has considered this response, but it does not address the concern raised, instead reiterating having worked in both elections.
Further put under s 359A was the following:
You were vague in your responses when asked by the Tribunal if there had been any threats made to you since you have been in Australia, and did not tell the Tribunal about any specific threats. However, you claimed in your protection visa application that Congress supporters and members came and spoke to your parents in April 2019 and threatened you (and reaffirmed with the delegate that your wife had been told by your family that Congress had visited).
This information is relevant to the review because you omitted to tell the Tribunal about a specific incident of a threat which you had earlier claimed took place.
If the Tribunal relies on this information in making its decision, it may lead the Tribunal to find that you have not been threatened by Congress people at any time since coming to Australia…
The response was that when the applicants were in Australia, Congress supporters and members came and spoke to the first named applicant’s parents in April 2019 and threatened and harm to his parents, as well as the second named applicant’s family members and parents. The Tribunal has considered this response, but it does not explain the failure to tell the Tribunal anything specific about threats. The response also referred to a letter from the first named applicant’s father. The Tribunal notes there is a letter from his father, which states in part ‘Opposition party people have also threatened, beaten and targeted him [the first named applicant]. [The applicants] left, these groups continue to harass me at my home and workplace’, as well as ‘Opposition party members have approached me, questioning the whereabouts of my son and [Applicant 2], warning that they will expose him if he returns.’ The Tribunal affords this letter little weight. It does not provide any additional convincing detail about the threats, and despite asserting there continue to be many threats, the first named applicant’s oral own evidence about threats was vague. When asked during the hearing if there had been any threats to him since being in Australia the last six years, he said that whenever he speaks to his people on the phone they say don’t come back. Asked what he meant by his people, he said he speaks to this father sometimes. Asked if his father had told him about anything specific where he had been threatened, he said his mother-in-law and other people were creating issues, because it is a caste issue. The Tribunal asked about election-related threats – why have they threatened you, what are they saying? The applicant spoke about election meaning one village, the welfare of people, roads, hospitals, taking care of all those things, so if their candidate wins, they will do welfare activities, so he went home to home to explain what the candidate would do. As this response was not directed to the question asked, the Tribunal asked again why the election people have been making threats since he has been in Australia and when those threats were. The first named applicant responded that it had been there for a long time, from 2012 or 2013.
Next, the Tribunal has significant concerns in relation to the first named applicant’s evidence about which political candidates he supported. As recorded in the delegate’s decision, he told the delegate he had campaigned for [Candidate B]. The delegate put to him that [Candidate B] was an INC candidate in the 2013 elections, and switched to the BJP in 2019, to which the applicant responded that he didn’t know if [Candidate B] was a candidate for the BJP or INC, but that he supported him. During the hearing, when asked if there was a candidate he was supporting in the 2013 election when he was going door to door for the BJP, the first named applicant told the Tribunal it was [Candidate B]. He said it was the same person he supported in 2018. Also, in relation to 2018, in the context of questioning about how the first named applicant met the second named applicant, he had claimed he met her at her house when he was campaigning for the BJP in 2018, and when asked by the Tribunal if there was a particular candidate he was going house to house to canvass votes for, the applicant said it was [Candidate B]. The Tribunal put to the applicant that as recorded in the delegate’s decision, [Candidate B] was not a BJP candidate in 2013. The first named applicant responded by saying the Tribunal had asked him a question about [Candidate B], but was it [Candidate B], no. The one before was [Minister A]. (The Tribunal notes that [Minister A] was [a] Minister from [2013].[3]) The Tribunal queried why he had told the Tribunal he was supporting [Candidate B] in the 2013 election. The first named applicant said that at the moment it is [Candidate B]. He bemoaned that they keep changing parties and they implore them not to have these quarrels but said they don’t consider that, they take personal revenge on him and do all these things.
[3] [Source deleted.]
As this demonstrates, the applicant on multiple occasions referred to canvassing support for BJP candidate [Candidate B], then appearing to resile from this when the Tribunal indicated he wasn’t a BJP politician. The Tribunal also wrote the following in the s 359A letter:
You told the Tribunal that the election you were campaigning for in 2018 was a national election where you were canvassing votes for the BJP including [Candidate B]. However, country information indicates the election in 2018 was a Karnataka Legislative Assembly election. Country information also indicates that [Candidate B] was running as a candidate in 2018 for the INC and did not run as a candidate for the BJP until [a later election].
This information is relevant to the review because it indicates that there was no national election in 2018, as you claim, and nor was [Candidate B] running as a BJP candidate in 2018 as you claim.
If the Tribunal relies on this information in making its decision, it may lead the Tribunal to find that you did not campaign for the BJP in 2018 and were not harmed by Congress people because of your involvement...
The first named applicant responded that the Karnataka Legislative Assembly election was done in 2018 and that he did campaigning for BJP candidate [Candidate A] and provided a photo as proof. (As also recorded earlier in this decision, in another part of his response to the s 359A letter, he said he backed [Candidate A] in 2013 and 2018 elections and said that [Candidate B] changed parties to the BJP in 2018). The first named applicant’s response does not address the Tribunal’s concern about the nature of the 2013 election. This is only a minor concern. Far more significant, in the Tribunal’s view, is that the first named applicant claimed for the first time to have supported [Candidate A] in 2013 and 2018. The Tribunal notes that country information indicates that a [variant name of Candidate A] was runner up to [Candidate B] in these elections.[4] However, the applicant had never previously mentioned this person. He has provided a photo as corroborative evidence, but the Tribunal affords this photo no weight. The first named applicant asserts the individual next to him in the photo to be [Candidate A] but has provided no other independent evidence confirming that this is the individual in the photo. Even if the Tribunal accepts it is, the photo does not demonstrate that the applicant engaged in any campaign work for him. At best, it indicates that the first named applicant knew him and implicitly was in favour of him. In addition, his response to the s 359A letter disavowed being a supporter of [Candidate B]: ‘As you may know, we were in favour of [Candidate B], but that is untrue. We backed [Candidate A], who was a BJP candidate.’ The Tribunal regards this as a significant concern and is of the view that the first named applicant was changing his evidence to suit the country information about successful and unsuccessful candidates in 2013 and 2018, rather than telling the truth.
[4] [Sources deleted.]
In considering the first named applicant’s political claims, the Tribunal has also had regard to the oral evidence from the second named applicant but gives it little weight. She told the Tribunal that the first named applicant was having problems related to the elections and she met him when he was campaigning door to door. She said he was hit by Congress party people about a week after their wedding. She also said the opposition Congress people came for the first named applicant after they had left the temple they were hiding in, when she was [pregnant], and beat him and misbehaved with her such as spitting in her face, and this is the reason she had a miscarriage. The Tribunal notes medical evidence provided with the s 359A response shows the second named applicant was diagnosed with a miscarriage on [date] (no yolk sac or fetal pole was seen on the ultrasound). While the Tribunal accepts this miscarriage took place, it is common knowledge that miscarriages, particularly in early pregnancy, are common, and this evidence is not probative of the cause or circumstances surrounding the miscarriage. While the date of the evidence does align with the claim of an attack in November 2018, and the medical certificate discussed in paragraph 64, the Tribunal has significant broader concerns about the credibility of the claim that there was an attack at this time, and significant broader concerns about the first named applicant ever having campaigned or been involved in politics and attacked at any time, in light of the overall presentation of the evidence in this case, including the matters discussed in paragraph 64. In addition, as put in the s 359A letter:
[Applicant 2] told the Tribunal that after you returned from the temple, you experienced harm in that you were beaten by opposition (Congress) people. However, you told the Tribunal that after you returned from the temple, you experienced harm in that you were beaten and scalded by [Applicant 2’s] family as well as experienced trouble from Congress people.
This information is relevant to the review because you and [Applicant 2] have given inconsistent accounts of who was causing you harm in the period after you left the temple and before you came to Australia.
If the Tribunal relies on this information in making its decision, it may lead the Tribunal to find that you and [Applicant 2] did not suffer harm from [Applicant 2’s] family and/or Congress people…
The response to this was that the first named applicant ‘were harm and beaten by opposition party people when I was returned from the temple. Same time threatened, harm and beaten by [the applicant’s] family. And got trouble from Congress people. Detail explanation has been provided along with medical certificate that I was in the hospital about two days several body damage. As well as opposition parties people during this time harassed to [Applicant 2] and she got miscarriage she can provide medical certificate for more information’. The Tribunal has already discussed the miscarriage medical documentation. In relation to the rest of the applicants’ response, it does not allay the Tribunal’s concern about the first named applicant not telling the Tribunal he had been beaten by Congress (to the point of hospitalisation for two days) at this time; rather only saying that he experienced ‘trouble’ from them and was beaten by the second named applicant’s family.
The Tribunal has had regard to the medical certificate from [Hospital 1], which describes the first named applicant being hospitalised for a number of injuries after an assault by a group of men which occurred [in] November 2018. The Tribunal gives this evidence no weight. During the hearing, the first named applicant told the Tribunal nothing about an attack by a group of men in November 2018 which resulted in a two-day hospital visit. The first named applicant gave oral evidence about being beaten by the second named applicant’s family and hospitalised for two days, but this was a week after they were married in July 2018. As recorded in the delegate’s decision, he gave evidence to the delegate about a beating in October or November 2018, but it was vague, with the applicant unable to describe which political party the attackers were from or why they targeted him. As mentioned in the s 359A letter, the first named applicant also gave oral evidence about living in a temple in hiding and not leaving it until a few days before coming to Australia (in February 2019), which does not align with an attack in November 2018. The applicants did not comment on this in the s 359A response.
As explored in the Tribunal’s above reasoning, the Tribunal has a number of significant concerns about the credibility of the first named applicant’s evidence, including his evidence being riddled with inconsistencies, lacking clarity and detail, and his evidence changing over time and when issues were put for comment. The Tribunal, considering all the evidence, finds that the applicants’ claims about the first named applicant’s and his father’s involvement in politics for the BJP (or any other party) completely lack credibility. The Tribunal does not accept any of these claims. The Tribunal does not accept that the first named applicant was involved in any elections at any time, including in activities such as campaigning door to door and putting up posters, nor was he involved in or a supporter of the BJP, or any other party, at any other time or in any other capacity. The Tribunal also does not accept that the first named applicant’s father was involved in any elections at any time, nor was he ever a member of the BJP or any other political party and nor did he engage in any activities or support for any party at any time or in any capacity. The Tribunal does not accept that the first named applicant, or his father, or the second named applicant, or any of the applicants’ family members, were ever harmed, threatened, or attacked, at any time, by any political party members or supporters or anyone else.
The first named applicant told the Tribunal he has had no involvement in Indian politics since being in Australia. While he said this is because it is a headache, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has ever been involved in politics before and would similarly not be motivated to do so in the future. The Tribunal finds that the applicants have never been, and will not in the reasonably foreseeable future be, of adverse interest to any political party or anyone associated with a political party should they return to India.
For these reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicants face a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm, from any political party members or supporters or associates or anyone else for reasons relating to political opinion or activity.
Marriage claim
The applicants claimed during the Tribunal hearing that they also feared returning to India because they were in an inter-caste marriage and had been harmed by the second named applicant’s family.
The second named applicant gave oral evidence that she met the first named applicant two months before they married, and it was a one-sided love. She loved him, and told her parents she loved him, and her parents did not agree to that, so they got married in a temple. She said the first named applicant married her because she could read, write and was well-educated, whereas he was not well-educated. Her parents did not agree because he was of a lower caste, but the first named applicant’s parents agreed because they were lower caste. Asked if they experienced any trouble after their marriage, the second named applicant said after their marriage they went to her in-laws house, and then her parents came and beat her and took her away. She escaped, and did not tell them that she went back to the first named applicant. Then they started threatening the first named applicant as well; they beat him, threatened him and said rude words to him, directing this more to him rather than her. Her parents used to tell her that he was from a lower caste and that she should leave him. The Tribunal asked if she had been in contact with her parents since she has been in Australia. She said that she speaks to her mother about once every six months because a daughter loves her mother. The Tribunal asked her what her parents think about her marriage to the first named applicant now. She said that they still have anger because she married a lower caste person and that affected their prestige. The Tribunal observed that the second named applicant still had a relationship with her mother and asked if she feared harm. She responded yes. The Tribunal asked why – has anything happened since they have been in Australia? She said that every now and then they go to her in-laws house and enquire with them if the applicants would be coming back and threatened to kill the first named applicant if he came back. The Tribunal asked when this threat was made. She responded that she couldn’t remember exactly when, but once every year they come and threaten. The Tribunal asked why they were asking her in-laws about their return if she was in contact with her mother. She responded that she didn’t speak to her mother every day and she does not tell her what is happening and that it was her father and other family members who make enquiries with her in-laws.
The Tribunal asked when the incident where she was beaten and taken away by her family happened. She said that she and the first named applicant were away for a week after their marriage in a temple and after one week, they went home to her in-laws house. The incident happened the day after they came back. Her parents and family were there as well as Congress opposition people, who came to hit the first named applicant. The Tribunal asked if anyone helped to protect her from her parents, such as the first named applicant’s parents. She said nobody cared because of the prestige issue and people worry about their own things only. The first named applicant’s parents asked her parents why they were beating her and taking her away, but her family did not listen. When asked where the first named applicant was at this time, she said they scolded and beat him too, then took her away. She was with her parents for one day then escaped back to her in-laws. The Tribunal asked if anything happened back at her in-laws house. She said that she and her husband went away and lived in a temple for four months. While living at the temple, nothing happened to them as no-one knew they were there. They then went back to her in-laws house in October or November. The Tribunal asked if, after returning, she or the first named applicant experienced any harm from anyone. She said she was [pregnant] and opposition people came for the first named applicant and beat him, scolded him, broke the door and she tried to stop them and they misbehaved with her such as spitting on her and this was the reason she had a miscarriage.

The first named applicant similarly told the Tribunal that the second named applicant’s family did not agree to the applicants’ marriage because of a caste issue. Because of the caste issue, whenever they saw him, they used to scald him. He said it was hell encountering them after the wedding. The Tribunal asked the first named applicant who was at the wedding. He said there were many people coming and going, so how would he know? He then said he and his wife and priest, and his friends were there too. The Tribunal asked if their families were there. He said his family was there. He then said by family he meant friends who were older. He said his parents and the second named applicant’s parents weren’t there. The Tribunal asked why weren’t there. He said it was because of caste. The Tribunal asked if both sets of parents had an issue with the marriage. He said there was no problem in his house but there was a bit of a problem in the second named applicant’s house. The Tribunal asked, in that case, why his parents didn’t go to the wedding. He responded because it was a low marriage and if they married at home the second named applicant’s mother and father would come to know. The Tribunal indicated it wasn’t clear about why his parents didn’t come to the wedding if they didn’t have a problem with it. The first named applicant said that they ran away and married and if it was a proper wedding, everyone would have come to know, but it was not a proper wedding. The Tribunal observed that the applicant had said many people were there, suggesting lots of people knew about it. He responded that it was a small place so there were a few people there; only one or two of his friends came to support.
The Tribunal asked where he and the second named applicant lived after the wedding. He said they were at the temple for about a week, then they went home to his parents’ house, but that they were again threatened so they thought it best to go away. The Tribunal asked who came to the house and he said it was the second named applicant’s mother and father and family. The Tribunal observed that he had said he was threatened and queried if he was harmed at all. The first named applicant responded that when they returned after the wedding they came and threatened him and said why did he marry their daughter, we don’t like this, you should separate and harassed him a lot. The Tribunal asked if anything else happened. He said they beat him and took his wife away. The Tribunal clarified that it was not just threats in that case. The first named applicant said they beat them and took away his wife and left him at the house. He said family was in the house at the time, and many people were outside too, and many people came and scolded them and threatened them, and some people were there because of the election too. He was in hospital for two days.
After returning from the hospital, his wife came to the house. They then went and stayed in the temple for four months. The Tribunal asked when they came back home. The first named applicant said that after staying at the temple, they came home and stayed at home for a few days. The Tribunal asked where they then went. The first named applicant said they came to Australia. The Tribunal asked, at the time at the temple, and in the few days before they came to Australia, whether they experienced any harm. The first named applicant said they were scared to go outside when hiding in the temple and one or two friends came and helped them there. He said they had to leave the temple because his wife was pregnant and they thought if they went home, his parents and his wife’s parents would agree and be happy, but they did not, and did the same thing, scalding them and threatening them and doing things to him and his wife. The Tribunal said to the first named applicant that he had told the Tribunal he was only home for a few days between the temple and coming to Australia and that there was harassment in that period and queried whether that was what he was saying. The applicant responded ‘yes’. The Tribunal asked if he experienced any harm from anybody else in that short period. He said that even the Congress people were causing trouble, there was trouble from the family people, it was a lot of mental agony, he could not tell anybody, it was a shame. The Tribunal asked whether anything had happened, if he had learned about any threats, in the six years he had been in Australia. He said that whenever he spoke to his people on the phone, they told them not to come back. Asked what he meant by ‘my people’, he said he speaks to his father sometimes. The Tribunal asked if his father had told him about any specific threats. He said whenever he spoke to his father, his father told him that his mother-in-law, and other people (when asked to clarify, he said his father-in-law and election people) were creating issues and because it is a caste issue, as seen in social media examples, he thinks they will burn or cut him.
The Tribunal acknowledges and has had regard to elements of consistency between the applicants’ evidence, for example in that they both claimed the second named applicant’s parents did not approve of the marriage, that they lived in a temple for about a week after the marriage, then returned to the first named applicant’s family’s house, after which they were threatened and harmed by the second named applicant’s family and that she was taken away by the family. They also both spoke about then returning to live in the temple for four months. However, the evidence of the first named applicant at the hearing differed in several respects from the evidence of the second named applicant.
Firstly, as put for comment under s 359A:
[Applicant 2] initially told the Tribunal that after you were married, you both went to your parents’ house about a week later, then her parents came and beat her and took her away. She escaped and returned to you. Then they started threatening you, and beat you, and said rude words to you. However, you told the Tribunal that when you went to your parents’ house a week after your wedding, both of you were beaten and she was taken away, and when she returned, you did not suggest in your evidence that you were threatened or beaten again.
This information is relevant to the review because you and [Applicant 2] have given inconsistent accounts of the harm you both suffered at the hands of [her] parents.
If the Tribunal relies on this information in making its decision, it may lead the Tribunal to find that neither you nor [Applicant 2] were ever harmed by [Applicant 2’s] parents or family, that your claims that [Applicant 2’s] family disapproved of your marriage are not true…
In response, the applicants said ‘[Applicant 2] was witness that [the applicant’s] parents and family members were threatened and harmed severely to both [the applicants] and also [the applicant’s] parents. After that [the applicant] has been admitted to a hospital. Yes [the applicant] was told to the member he was harmed and beaten. Do you have any information I can provide [Applicant 2] Mother contact number…’
The Tribunal notes this response reasserts that the first named applicant was harmed and beaten, and says he went to hospital, but considers it does not address the Tribunal’s concern about inconsistencies in the accounts of evidence about when beatings took place.
The Tribunal notes that the second named applicant gave evidence that her parents came and beat her and took her away, that she returned to the first named applicant, and then they started threatening and beating the first named applicant. The Tribunal later asked again about whether anything happened to them at the first named applicant’s family’s house when the second named applicant came back from her parents (and before they went back to the temple), but the second named applicant did not respond directly to the question, instead saying that she and her husband went away and lived in a temple for four months. When later asked if she or her husband experienced harm after returning from their four months stay at the temple, she spoke about Congress people beating up her husband, but did not mention her family. The applicants did not challenge the information put that the second named applicant had suggested in her evidence that there was harm inflicted after she escaped from her parents. The response is a general and vague reiteration of threats and harm and beatings being inflicted.
In addition, as put under s 359A:
[Applicant 2] told the Tribunal that you both lived in the temple for four months and returned to your parents’ house sometime in October to November 2018. However, you told the Tribunal that you both lived in the temple for four months and returned to your parents’ house a few days before you came to Australia in February 2019.
This information is relevant to the review because you and [Applicant 2] have given inconsistent evidence about the time you left the temple.
If the Tribunal relies on this information in making its decision, it may lead the Tribunal to find that you and [Applicant 2] did not live in the temple to hide from her family as you have claimed, that your claims that [Applicant 2’s] family disapproved of your marriage are not true…
In response, the applicants said that they lived in the temple around four months and provided a reference letter from the temple. The Tribunal acknowledges that both applicants claimed they lived in the temple for four months and the second named applicant said it was a [specified] temple. The Tribunal has also had regard to the letter from the priest at the [Temple 1], which says the applicants arrived seeking shelter [in] July 2018 and explained their situation and that he gave them refuge at the temple for four months. However, the applicants’ response does not address, at all, the Tribunal’s concern that the first named applicant told the Tribunal that after they left the temple, they were only at his parents’ house for a few days, then came to Australia. The first named applicant’s oral evidence about this was clear. Given they did not come to Australia until [February] 2019, it means, on his account, that they were at the temple from July 2018 until early February 2019, a period of over six months. The Tribunal regards this as a significant issue. In light of this, and the other broader credibility concerns discussed below, the Tribunal places no weight on the priest’s letter.
Another item of information put under s 359A has been discussed earlier in this decision. It related to the second named applicant telling the Tribunal that after they returned from the temple, the first named applicant experienced harm in that he was beaten by opposition (Congress) people, but the first named applicant telling the Tribunal that after they returned from the temple, he experienced harm in that he were beaten and scalded by the second named applicant’s family and experienced ‘trouble’ from Congress people. As discussed earlier, the applicants’ response about this does not allay the Tribunal’s concern about the first named applicant not telling the Tribunal he had been beaten by Congress (to the point of hospitalisation for two days) at this time.
Next, as put to the applicants during the hearing, their claim about the second named applicant’s parents not approving of their marriage and harming them was not raised before the Department made its decision in 2020. The Tribunal explained that the law required it to draw an unfavourable inference on the credibility of the claim unless they satisfied the Tribunal they have a reasonable explanation why they did not raise the claim before the Department. The first named applicant spoke about being in jail for the first time (the Tribunal notes he was incarcerated when he was interviewed by the delegate) and was mentally worried, saying he had problems here and in India and was in a different place at his wife and he did not know what to say. He also said does not know how to write or to read, apart from his own name. He could speak up to five languages but cannot write. The Tribunal asked why that was relevant to why he did not raise the claim about the marriage problem. He responded that he was thinking of telling about it, but even before he could tell, his wife told about it. He said that they had responded to everything the Tribunal Member asked. The Tribunal pointed out that the protection visa application was made before he was in jail, and asked why he did not mention the harm and fears relating to his wife’s family in that application? He responded that they wanted to mention about this in the application at that time, but they slowly came to know after that, there was a problem in India. He said when the second named applicant’s mother spoke to her on the phone, that’s when they understood that the problem was becoming bigger. The Tribunal also notes that when it asked the second named applicant why they had not included the marriage claims in their protection visa application, she said that they didn’t know they could mention such types of threats in the application, and only found this out about four months after arriving in Australia. The Tribunal observed that the delegate’s decision was not made until July 2020 and the first named applicant had not mentioned the claim in his interview. She said that she told her husband to tell them about it, but he was scared and confused.
While the Tribunal accepts that the first named applicant was in jail at the time of the interview, and that this was a stressful and scary time for him, the Tribunal is satisfied that this is not a reasonable explanation why the claim was not raised at that forum or before the decision was made, given that he was able to participate in a lengthy interview with the delegate and give extensive evidence about his political claims, yet did not claim to fear harm from his wife’s family, despite claiming to have been severely injured by them in the past. The first named applicant’s poor writing ability is also not a reasonable explanation why the claim was not raised, given he/his wife was able to write about the political claims in the application. The first named applicant also indicated that they wanted to mention it in the application at the time, but they later came to know the problem was becoming bigger. The Tribunal does not accept this; the applicants’ evidence otherwise was that they had been facing severe threats and harm from the second named applicant’s family shortly before coming to Australia, and their protection visa application was made only a few months after arriving. The Tribunal also does not accept the claim by the second named applicant that they only found out four months after arriving in Australia that they could include such a claim. The protection visa application form does not limit the reasons applicants can say why they left their home country and feared returning, the second named applicant did not even indicate that she had any claims of her own, and finding out about four months after arriving in Australia that such a claim could be made is only a short time after they made the application, which left the applicants with ample opportunity to give further information to the Department about their fears. The Tribunal has considered the applicants’ responses as a whole and is satisfied they do not have a reasonable explanation why the claim was not raised before the primary decision was made, and therefore draws an inference unfavourable to the credibility of the claim.
The Tribunal has other concerns about the credibility of the marriage claim including that the Tribunal found the first named applicant’s evidence about the applicants’ wedding to lack coherency and plausibility. He initially suggested that he couldn’t say who was in attendance because of the many people coming and going, but later suggested it was a small wedding with only a few people in attendance. He also said his parents were not there, but his reasons for this were unclear and lacked plausibility. He said they couldn’t marry at his home because the first named applicant’s parents would find out. Pushed on the issue, he indicated it wasn’t a proper wedding as this would have meant everyone would have found out. This does not explain why his parents could not come, discreetly, to the wedding at the temple, like some of the first named applicant’s friends were able to.
The Tribunal also considers the second named applicant being in occasional contact with her mother, despite her mother previously having been a key actor in harming both applicants, to lack plausibility. Indeed, part of the s 359A response states that ‘when we go back [Applicant 2’s] parents and family members will do threats harm and try to kill with knives for inter caste marriage (honour killing in India) and beaten for both of [the applicants]’, indicating the applicants claim that there is a present threat of death from her parents.
In relation to the letter from the first named applicant’s father, this describes the second named applicant’s family and parents repeatedly assaulting the applicants, and her parents having come to his home and church, plotting against them, opposing their marriage and threatening harm, and sharing the applicants’ details on social media to target them. The Tribunal gives this evidence little weight. The applicants did not otherwise claim to have had their details shared on social media, and the letter does not provide any additional convincing detail about the harm or threats.
Finally, the Tribunal notes that various pieces of the corroborative evidence or response to the s 359A letter suggest that the Tribunal could contact persons for more information such as the priest and first named applicant’s father. The Tribunal does not consider that the applicants have requested the Tribunal to contact any witnesses. However, if anything of this nature were to be inferred, the Tribunal declines to do so, accepting the persons would give evidence in line with their written evidence, which has been considered.
As the above demonstrates, the Tribunal has significant concerns regarding inconsistencies in the evidence, the new nature of the claim, and other matters. Having regard to the entirety of the evidence, the Tribunal concludes that the applicants’ claims that the second named applicant’s parents and wider family disapproved of their inter-caste marriage and subsequently threatened and harmed them on various occasions in India, and continue to threaten them now, lack credibility. The Tribunal rejects these claims in their entirety. The Tribunal does not accept that the second named applicant’s parents objected or object to the applicants’ inter-caste marriage. The Tribunal does not accept that they, or any other extended family member, have ever threatened, harmed, beat, kidnapped or otherwise harmed either applicant, or the first named applicant’s family, at any time. The Tribunal finds that the applicants have never been and will not now or in the reasonably foreseeable future be threatened or harmed by the second named applicant’s family on return to India.
For these reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicants face a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm, for reasons relating to their inter-caste marriage.
Conclusion
The Tribunal has found that the applicants do not face a real chance of serious harm from the second named applicant’s family, or from anyone associated with any political party, on return to India. It follows that the applicants do not have a well-founded fear of persecution under s 5J(1).
In considering whether the applicants meet the complementary protection criterion set out in s 36(2)(aa), the Tribunal has considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to India, there is a real risk they will suffer significant harm. As the Tribunal has found that there is no real chance the applicants will suffer serious harm on return, the Tribunal is also not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to India, there is a real risk that they will suffer significant harm.

Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that either applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations, and the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in
s 36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(b) or (c) and cannot be granted the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.
Date of hearing: 10 June 2025
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…