Our client, an Indian citizen, was discriminated against because he was a prominent Sikh. Police in India viewed our client as a prominent militant, and he was repeatedly tortured and detained on numerous occasions. Even when he was on release, he was kept under surveillance and as a result had difficulty finding work. He escaped to Australia on a temporary resident visa, with his wife and children remaining in India.
Immigration, while acknowledging there was a real chance our client would be persecuted if he returned to Punjab, found that he could safely relocate to other parts of India. It therefore rejected our client’s application for a protection visa as a refugee.
On appeal, we carefully constructed an argument based on credibility. Presenting our client’s evidence in a frank and direct manner, we demonstrated to the Tribunal how the evidence presented was consistent with earlier written evidence. We showed how our client’s experience of repeated arbitrary arrests, imprisonment and torture was consistent with authoritative sources such as published human rights reports.
By submitting to the Tribunal details of our client’s circumstances, history, religious and political profile, we successfully argued that it was not reasonable for our client to relocate to other parts of India as it would not provide him with a secure alternative home or effective protection. Because of this, the Tribunal found our client to be a refugee.
You can read the published version of this case by clicking here.