A man who claimed he would be “killed” by his in-laws if he is forced to return to India, has been refused protection visa as his claims were found “lacking in detail in significant respects”.
The 34-year-old man claimed that he fell in love with a girl of another caste in his village in India and married her. He said in his application that his family was the only family of that caste in his village and the rest of the village was of another caste, including his wife’s family.
He claimed that his wife’s family threatened to kill him, forcing them to go in hiding before he moved to Australia with his wife on a student dependent visa in 2009 “to save their lives and future”.
He said that his in-laws came to know about their whereabouts in Australia and continued to threaten them over the phone and pressured his wife to leave him.
“I don’t know what happened, and one day, my wife went away, and I lost all contact with her,” the man said in his protection visa application.
He said when he went to India to look for his wife in November 2012, he was attacked by his in-laws and that he was hospitalised. He claimed he had to remain in hiding after he was attacked a second time and the police did not act despite being informed.
“[They] have got contacts with the police and the politicians and will either kill me or get me behind bars without any reason... They can get me killed within seconds from anyone,” he said.
Claims lacking in detail
He applied for a protection visa in 2014 after failing to get another student dependent visa. However, his protection visa application was refused and it was noted that he did not attend the scheduled interview.
He applied for a review by the Migration Review Tribunal. When he was invited to attend a hearing, he did not appear nor did he respond to the communication.
The Tribunal noted that his claims were lacking in detail in significant respects, particularly about allegations including the circumstances of how his wife’s family threatened them in India and Australia, circumstances in which he claimed his wife had left him and his claims that he was attacked twice when he went to India to look for his wife.
The Tribunal did not accept that he would suffer harm from his wife’s family because of his relationship with his wife, or any related reason, if he returned to India.
The Immigration Department had submitted some documents with the condition of non-disclosure under public interest, which included a purported letter by his then wife.
In the letter, she said the relationship between the couple did not work out because of their “personal and family problems, miscommunications and different ideology which finally ended up this relation and ultimately led me for a divorce.”
He challenged the decision in the Federal Circuit Court and subsequently in the Federal Court of Australia, including on the basis that he was not notified about the existence of these documents.
However, the courts found that as his wife’s letter did not delve into the likelihood of him facing harm in India, it did not affect the Tribunal’s decision on his case and that there was “no practical injustice” done to him on account of not being notified of the existence of the documents.
