2100827 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of India, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have fled India in 2012 due to threats and violence from loan sharks, [Mr A] and [Mr B], who were allegedly politically well-connected and influential. He alleged that these individuals had pursued him for debts incurred by his deceased father, resulting in assaults and threats to his life. The applicant also raised a fear of harm from COVID-19 in India. The Tribunal considered whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, including the refugee criterion and the complementary protection criterion.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as required for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958. If not, the Tribunal was required to consider whether the applicant was entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa), meaning there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia to India, there was a real risk that he would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. It found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for complementary protection, as there were no substantial grounds for believing that he would suffer significant harm upon removal to India. The Tribunal's reasoning, while not detailed in the provided text, led to the conclusion that the applicant's claims did not satisfy the relevant legislative thresholds for protection.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the applicant was not granted a protection visa.