2217279 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against a decision to refuse him a protection visa. The applicant, an Indian national, claimed he faced serious harm from his wife's family and their associates upon return to India. He alleged he was coerced into marrying and divorcing both of his ex-wife's sisters, and subsequently forced to remarry the elder sister. He also claimed his in-laws blamed him for their son's death and that their influence, including links to the ruling political party, meant he could not find safety in India.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution, thus meeting the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), or alternatively, whether he was entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm if removed from Australia. Key issues included the credibility of his claims regarding forced marriages, threats, and the influence of his in-laws, as well as the consistency of his evidence concerning these matters and his reasons for agreeing to subsequent marriages.

The court found inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence regarding the nature of his marriages and divorces, and noted a late claim of caste differences. It observed that the applicant had lived in close proximity to his in-laws for extended periods without reported harm or mistreatment, and that there was no concrete evidence linking any alleged attacks to his wife's family. Furthermore, the court considered that the applicant's family remained in India without apparent harm, and that relocation within India was a viable option. Consequently, the court affirmed the delegate's decision.