An Indian national’s bid for asylum in New Zealand after converting to Christianity has been rejected, with the Immigration and Protection Tribunal finding his claims of persecution “manifestly unfounded”.
In a decision issued in March 2026, the tribunal ruled the appellant failed to demonstrate a credible risk of persecution or serious harm if returned to India, concluding the evidence presented did not meet the legal threshold required for refugee protection.
“The evidence does not establish a risk of such harm that is any higher than mere speculation or a remote or random possibility,” the tribunal said as per the Indian Weekender.
The applicant, originally from Uttarakhand and born in 2001, entered New Zealand on a visitor visa in October 2023. He later began attending church and formally converted to Christianity in June 2024, around the time he lodged his refugee claim.
He alleged that his interest in Christianity had led to conflict with family members in India, including physical assaults by an uncle and threats linked to individuals associated with political and religious groups. He also claimed that his family home was attacked in March 2025 by a group of men.
However, the tribunal found inconsistencies and gaps in the claim, noting the applicant had not sought assistance from Indian authorities.
“He made no complaint to the police… nor did he seek the assistance of the courts,” the tribunal stated, adding that there was no evidence he had attempted to access state protection.
While acknowledging that the applicant had experienced violence, the tribunal concluded the incidents did not amount to persecution under refugee law and did not indicate an escalating risk.
It also found that the applicant could safely relocate within India, including to major cities such as Delhi or Mumbai, where there was no evidence of ongoing threat.
“There is no possibility of [those involved] knowing that the appellant had returned… or where in that city he was living,” the tribunal noted.
The tribunal further rejected arguments that broader religious tensions in India posed a risk, stating such claims were unsupported and not relevant to the applicant’s circumstances.
It concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for refugee or protected person status under international conventions, including the Refugee Convention and the Convention Against Torture.
“The appellant is not a refugee… The appeal is dismissed,” the ruling said.
Support our Journalism
No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.
