2403570 (Refugee)

The applicant, an Indian national, sought review of a decision to refuse his protection visa application. The applicant claimed he feared persecution in India due to his homosexuality and his Sikh religion, alleging his wife might attempt to kill him if he returned. The Tribunal considered evidence regarding the applicant's personal history, his relationships, and his experiences in India and other countries. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's attempts to provide translated communications with his wife as evidence, noting delays and cost issues that prevented him from submitting certified translations.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons specified in s 5J(1)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or whether 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 under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims and determine if any claimed fear of persecution or risk of harm was genuine and sufficiently likely to warrant protection.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims regarding his sexual orientation and the potential for persecution were not substantiated to the required standard. While acknowledging the applicant's stated fear, the Tribunal noted inconsistencies and a lack of corroborating evidence regarding his past experiences and the specific threats he alleged. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's delay in applying for protection and his concealment of his sexual orientation in Australia, which, under s 5J(6) of the Act, could be disregarded unless the applicant could demonstrate it was not for the purpose of strengthening his claim. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under either s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.