Australia fed court rejects Dera Sacha Sauda man’s visa appeal

The attempt by a Punjabi man to seek protection visa from Australia, claiming to be a follower of Sirsa-based Dera Sacha Sauda who was facing a threat from Sikhs, fell flat after a federal court in Victoria too rejected his appeal and imposed costs. He had gone in appeal, along with his wife and a child, after a delegate of the minister for Immigration and Border Protection turned down his application for visa and rejection of his appeals by Administrative Appeals Tribunal and a federal Circuit Court of Australia.
The Court noted before the Federal Circuit Court that the appellants raised four grounds in their written application: that he had sustained an injury to his leg as a result of being attacked by Sikhs in 2007; that he was told it was not necessary to apply for a protection visa when he came to Australia on a student visa; his father had told him not to return to India due to ongoing clashes (between Sikhs and DSS followers) and he had not been to India for eight years to see his daughter, who still lives there.


The applicant, whose name has not been mentioned in the order of the court - uploaded on its website and last updated on December 5, 2017, had reached Australia in 2009. In his order, judge Rangiah J noted that the applicants claimed "to fear harm on the basis of the first appellant's past involvement with Dera Sacha Sauda (DSS). The second appellant also claims to fear harm, on the basis of her status as a widow, if the first appellant were killed if they return to India".

While citing findings of the Tribunal Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the court noted, "the Tribunal found that the appellants were not credible witnesses, giving detailed reasons for that assessment. The Tribunal found that the appellants were not followers or members of DSS. The Tribunal also rejected their claims that the first appellant had attended DSS events and had otherwise been involved with the Dera. It rejected their claims that he had been involved in clashes between Dera supporters and Sikhs, that he had been burnt by police, and that he is at risk of being killed if he returns to India...."

The Judge also noted that the fact that the first appellant could demonstrate he had a mark on his leg did not establish how he had acquired the mark.

"The Tribunal made otherwise comprehensive findings rejecting the credibility of the appellants' evidence... There was no jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal," the court held in its recent order.