2109337 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Hindu man from Jalandhar, India, sought review of a decision to refuse his protection visa. He claimed he would face a real risk of serious harm if returned to India due to his Hindu faith, past associations with Hindu groups like the RSS and BJP, and his marriage to a Sikh woman. He also raised concerns about his wife being targeted due to her work and general issues related to the coronavirus pandemic. The applicant had a history of domestic violence in Australia, leading to his arrest and imprisonment, and had been subject to an apprehended violence order preventing contact with his wife.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee within the meaning of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or whether Australia owed him protection obligations under the complementary protection criterion. This involved assessing his claims of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether he would suffer significant harm upon removal to India. The court also considered whether effective protection measures were available to him in India and whether internal relocation was a reasonable option.

The court affirmed the decision to refuse the protection visa. It found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant did not meet the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa), nor did he qualify as a member of the same family unit as a person who met those criteria, given his estrangement from his wife and the apprehended violence order. Consequently, the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for the grant of a protection visa.