Indian man who converted from Hinduism to Christianity is denied asylum in Australia; court says no risk of harm on return

An Indian man who converted from Hinduism to Christianity failed in his attempt to gain asylum in Australia, with a court ruling he faced no real risk of harm if he returned.The decision was issued last month after Australia’s Immigration and Protection Tribunal rejected the claim. The statement said the applicants’ fears of persecution were “clearly unfounded.” The court said the evidence provided did not meet the threshold required for refugee protection.“The evidence does not suggest that the risk of harm was greater than mere speculation or a remote or random possibility,” the court said, according to Australia Today. The applicant is a 23-year-old man 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 applied for asylum.In his statement, he claimed that his family in India was not happy with his conversion. He spoke of being physically assaulted by his uncle in March 2025 and of an attack on his home.However, the tribunal found inconsistencies and gaps in his statements. It noted that the man did not seek protection or assistance from Indian authorities.“He did not lodge a complaint with the police… nor seek the assistance of the courts,” the court said, adding that there was no evidence that he had attempted to seek state protection.The court acknowledged that the applicants may have suffered violence, but ruled that these incidents did not constitute persecution under refugee law. It also found there was no indication that the risk of harm would escalate if he returned to India.The decision further stated that the man could be safely resettled within the country. Big cities like Delhi and Mumbai are considered viable options where he does not face any ongoing threat.“It’s impossible [those involved] It was known that the appellant had returned… or where he was living in that city,” the court said.The court ultimately ruled that the applicant did not qualify 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.