2309769 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate's decision to refuse to grant the applicant, an Indian citizen, a protection visa. The applicant arrived in Australia in 2015 and applied for the visa in June 2023. The delegate refused the application due to a lack of detail and substantiating evidence in the applicant's claims, finding them not credible. The applicant was unrepresented before the delegate and the Tribunal.

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), or alternatively, the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing the applicant's claims of threats from his in-laws due to an inter-caste marriage, harassment by local authorities, arrest and torture by police, and disinheritance by his father. The court also considered new claims raised before the Tribunal concerning political opinion as a Sikh supporter of the Khalistan separatist movement, and membership of a particular social group based on his bisexuality and same-sex activities in India and Australia.

The court found the applicant's evidence to be inconsistent and implausible, particularly regarding the timing of his knowledge of his mother's death and the details of his alleged persecution. The court noted that the claims of political opinion, religion, and bisexuality were not raised in the initial application or with the delegate, and were not substantiated with credible evidence. The court applied Ministerial Direction No. 84 and considered relevant country information, ultimately finding that the applicant had not established a real risk of significant harm if returned to India.

The court affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa.