An Indian man who converted from Hinduism to Christianity has failed in his bid to gain asylum in Australia, with a court ruling that he faces no real risk of harm if returned to his home country.The decision was issued last month after the Australian Immigration and Protection Tribunal rejected the application. He said the applicant’s fears of persecution were “manifestly unfounded”. The court said that the evidence presented did not meet the minimum level required to protect refugees.The court said, according to what was reported by the Australian newspaper today, that “the evidence does not prove that the risk of such harm occurring is greater than mere speculation or a remote or random possibility.” The applicant is a 23-year-old from Uttarakhand who entered Australia on a visitor visa in October 2023. He began attending church soon after and officially converted to Christianity in June 2024, around the same time he submitted his asylum application.In his claim, he claimed that his family members in India were not happy with his religious conversion. He spoke of physical attacks by his uncle and an attack on his family home in March 2025.
However, the court identified inconsistencies and gaps in his story. She noted that the man did not turn to the Indian authorities for protection or assistance.“He did not file a complaint with the police… nor did he seek assistance from the courts,” the court said, adding that there was no evidence that he tried to obtain state protection.The court accepted that the applicant may have been subjected to violence, but ruled that these incidents did not rise to the level of persecution under refugee law.
It also found no indication that the risk of harm would increase if he returned to India.The decision also indicated that the man could move safely within the country. Major cities like Delhi and Mumbai were cited as viable options where he would not face any ongoing threat.“There is no possibility of that [those involved] The court said, knowing that the appellant had returned…or where he was living in that city.The court ultimately ruled that the applicant was not eligible for refugee or protected person status under international conventions, including the Refugee Convention and the Convention against Torture. The ruling stated that “the appellant is not a refugee…the appeal was rejected.”
