2312497 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' decision to refuse the applicant, an Indian national, a protection visa. The applicant, who arrived in Australia in 2015, claimed to have been a member of the Khalistan movement in India and to have faced harm and threats due to his support for the movement. He asserted that upon return to India, he would be targeted by the government and affiliated groups.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee under section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or alternatively, whether he was entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims and determine if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to India, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's oral evidence and documentary material, including country information. It found the applicant's claims to be vague, unsubstantiated, and unconvincing. Specifically, the Tribunal noted the applicant's limited knowledge of the historical and contemporary issues surrounding the Khalistan movement, the inconsistencies in his account of events, and the fact that his alleged persecution occurred approximately ten years prior to the hearing. The Tribunal also considered the possibility of internal relocation within India and the availability of state protection, concluding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the grant of a protection visa. The applicant did not satisfy the criteria for being a refugee or for complementary protection.