Axz16 v Minister for Immigration

This matter came before Dowdy J of the Federal Court of Australia concerning an application for a Protection visa. The applicant, who claimed to be born in Nepal, of Brahmin ethnicity and Hindu faith, sought protection in Australia due to a fear of persecution upon return to Nepal. He alleged he had been targeted by a Maoist rebel group, Moyos Ysel, since 2000, who demanded financial contributions and threatened his life when he was unable to comply. The applicant stated he had repeatedly fled to India to escape this group, eventually coming to Australia in February 2013 to seek protection.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of a Protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). Specifically, the court was required to consider whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution based on one of the prescribed grounds under the Refugees Convention, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia, thereby engaging complementary protection obligations.

Dowdy J referred to the established criteria for a Protection visa, as outlined in *SZUIJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* [2016] FCA 1574. These criteria include the Minister being satisfied that Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention, meaning the applicant is outside their country of origin and unable or unwilling to avail themselves of its protection due to a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The court also considered the complementary protection criterion, which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The applicant's claims regarding the threats from Moyos Ysel and the Nepalese Government's alleged inability to protect him were central to the assessment of these criteria.