2012606 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by a citizen of Nepal and his child, who was born in Australia. The applicant claimed he feared persecution upon return to Nepal due to his ethnic group and caste, and the general instability and crime in his home region. He also expressed concern about potential abduction for ransom due to his time spent in Australia. The applicant had arrived in Australia on a student visa, which later became invalid.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved determining if Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant, specifically considering whether he would face a real risk of significant harm if returned to Nepal. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims in light of relevant country information and guidelines, including the Refugee Law Guidelines and Complementary Protection Guidelines.

The Tribunal reasoned that Australia does not have complementary protection obligations if it is reasonable for the applicant to relocate to another area within their home country where they would not face a real risk of significant harm, or if the risk is one faced by the general population rather than the applicant personally. Applying these principles, the Tribunal found that the applicant's ethnic group and caste were dominant throughout Nepal, not just in his home region. While acknowledging the general risks of crime and political unrest in Nepal, the Tribunal concluded that these risks were faced by the population generally and did not establish a specific risk to the applicant personally. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the applicant had not demonstrated that relocation within Nepal would be unreasonable.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas.