Tribunal: Member C Carney-Orsborn
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed a decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa as the Tribunal was not satisfied that he would face a real chance of serious harm on return to his home country.
The applicant arrived in Australia from India in 2007. He was initially granted a student visa and then later applied for a remaining relative visa. This application was refused in 2015 and his application for review was found to be out of time. He then applied to the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) for a protection visa which was refused in 2016. This application to the AAT was for a review of the Department’s decision to refuse a protection visa.
The AAT considered evidence from the applicant, two of his relatives, and relevant country information. The applicant claimed that, if returned to India, he would face persecution and harm at the hands of his ex-wife’s family for disputes that arose prior to their divorce. The applicant said his former wife’s family was politically connected and that they would be able to find him if he relocated to another part of the country. They were shamed and angered by his assertions that he did not father the child his ex-wife had been carrying prior to their divorce. The applicant claimed he, and his family in India, were in danger of violent retribution. The applicant’s sister and distant relative gave evidence which only partially supported the applicant’s assertions and, in some respects, contradicted his own evidence.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely feared serious harm from his ex-wife’s family or that he was at risk of serious harm for any Convention reasons. In making its decision, the AAT also found that that there were no substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to India, there was a real risk that he would suffer significant harm.
Read the full decision