2012995 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a citizen of Nepal who sought a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear harm from his ex-wife's family and an underground political party upon return to Nepal, stemming from his divorce and alleged betrayal of Nepalese traditions. The Tribunal was required to determine whether Australia owed protection obligations to the applicant.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicant was a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution, or a non-citizen at real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Nepal, or if there was a possibility of relocation to another country where he would not face such risks.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of threats from his ex-wife's family, whose father was a politician, and from a political party accusing him of marrying another woman. However, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had been in Nepal since 2010 and that section 36(3) of the Act provides that Australia does not owe protection obligations if there is a possibility of relocation to another country apart from Australia. Applying this principle, and finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) or 36(2)(aa) of the Act, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa.