2104791 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' decision to refuse the applicant, a citizen of India, a protection visa. The applicant arrived in Australia in July 2019 and applied for the visa in October 2019, claiming he feared harm from drug dealers and distant relatives in India due to unpaid debts.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as a person to whom Australia owes protection obligations due to a real risk of significant harm if returned to India. This required assessing 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, or faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not a credible, truthful, or reliable witness due to significant inconsistencies in his evidence regarding the amounts paid, the individuals involved, and the circumstances of his departure from India. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had fabricated his claims to achieve a favourable migration outcome and therefore did not accept that he had been threatened or harmed, nor that he was being pursued for unpaid debts. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real chance the applicant would face serious harm or persecution in India, nor that he would suffer significant harm as a consequence of removal.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa, finding that the applicant did not meet the criteria under either section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).