2400053 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by an Indian national. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in India due to his support for the Khalistan movement and the Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) party, his Sikh religious identity, and alleged adverse attention from Indian authorities and anti-Sikh groups. He also raised concerns about a land dispute with his cousins and a pending criminal matter.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm if returned to India. This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility of his claims regarding his political affiliations, religious identity, and the alleged threats he faced.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims. While acknowledging his Sikh faith and the general political climate in India, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a genuine advocate or supporter of the Khalistan movement or the SAD party to the extent that he would be specifically targeted. The Tribunal also noted the lack of evidence connecting him to high-profile political figures he mentioned and that he failed to provide promised "solid proof" of his alleged friendship with an individual jailed with Amritpal Singh. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not convinced that the applicant or his family had been the subject of adverse attention or treatment by the police or Indian authorities, nor that he faced a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm upon return. The Tribunal applied the principle that the onus is on the applicant to specify all particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence to establish it.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, concluding that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a protection visa. The Tribunal deemed it unnecessary to consider section 36(3) of the relevant Act as it was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm if returned to India.