2103657 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, who had entered Australia in 2008, claimed to be a Sikh convert to Christianity in Australia, whose arranged marriage in India had been cancelled by his parents, leading to community ostracism and threats of honour killing. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's credibility and determine whether, on accepted claims, the criteria for protection were fulfilled.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, or alternatively, the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). This involved considering the meaning of "significant harm" and the circumstances in which a real risk of such harm would not be taken to exist, as outlined in sections 36(2A) and (2B) of the Act. The Tribunal also had regard to Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed, finding that the applicant's credibility was not established. This conclusion was informed by a detailed examination of the applicant's visa, study, work, and relationship history, which revealed a pattern of inconsistent claims and evidence. Notably, the applicant had declared no previous convictions but was later held in custody in Australia on a criminal matter. Furthermore, the applicant had travelled voluntarily to India for a short period in February 2016. The Tribunal found no suggestion that the applicant satisfied section 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.