An asylum plea by an Indian national who recently claimed persecution in India after converting from Hinduism to Christianity upon arriving in New Zealand was dismissed by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) in March 2026, with the tribunal finding the claim “manifestly unfounded” and that there no is sufficient risk of qualifying harm.
The tribunal found that an appellant must be able to establish a situation amounting to “being persecuted” in India, or as serious harm arising from breaches of human rights, which, it said, was not made out in this case. It also rejected the claim, noting that “The evidence does not establish a risk of such harm that is any higher than mere speculation or a remote or random possibility,”.
It also noted that the appellant did not provide evidence of any effort or there was no attempt by him to seek state protection in India during the events.
Background
The appellant, who hails from Uttarakhand and was born into a middle-class Hindu family in 2001, said his difficulties began after he developed an interest in Christianity while attending a Christian high school in India.
Years later he arrived in New Zealand on a visitor visa in October 2023 and later began attending church regularly. In April 2024, he notified the Refugee Status Unit of his intention to claim refugee status and in June 2024, he formally converted to Christianity, around the time he lodged his refugee claim.
It was on 17 June 2024 that the Refugee Status Unit received the appellant's Confirmation of Claim to Refugee and Protection Status form.
The appellant claimed that in March 2025, his family home in India was “attacked by a group of approximately six to eight people”, including relatives and individuals linked to political groups.
“The group threatened the appellant's family, broke a window, vandalised parts of the house with hockey sticks, and chanted party slogans,” the document states.
He alleged that those involved included his maternal relative and individuals associated with “parties such as the [Bharatiya Janata Party] BJP, Bajrang Dai and Gau Raksha Dai”.
The Refugee Status Unit (RSU) interviewed him on 14 March 2025 and declined his claim on 15 May 2025.
For refugee status, the appellant must show serious harm in India amounting to “being persecuted”, involving breaches of human rights.
He then appealed to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal.
“This is an appeal against a decision of a refugee and protection officer declining to grant refugee status or protected person status to the appellant, a citizen of India,” the tribunal said.
In its decision dated 11 March 2026, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the claim to be “manifestly unfounded”.
Appellant’s exposure to Christianity and family feud
Having studied in a Christian school in Uttarakhand, the appellant claimed that he developed “an interest in the Christian faith and its teachings”.
According to the appellant’s account, his paternal uncle opposed his exposure to Christianity and pressured his parents to send him elsewhere to study. After completing his studies in 2019, he worked on the family farm but continued attending church with Christian friends in secret.
He alleged that in 2020, his uncle [AA] beat him after finding his attendance at a church.
“The appellant was taken to [AA]'s house where [AA] demanded that he explain his attendance at a Christian church.”
“When the appellant challenged [AA]'s support for extremist Hindu organisations, [AA] tied the appellant's hands and beat him,” the submitted document states.
The appellant said he was beaten on two further occasions between 2021 and 2023, even after relocating to Uttar Pradesh, with his uncle accompanied by a group he described as having “a militant group sharing a radical ideology”.
Tribunal findings
The tribunal found that the appellant did not qualify for refugee or protected person status, citing several key reasons.
It ruled that the level of risk did not meet the legal threshold, stating.
“The evidence does not establish a risk of any such harm any higher than mere speculation or a remote or random possibility.”
The tribunal also emphasised that the appellant had not sought protection from authorities in India,.
“He made no complaint to the police, for example. Nor did he seek the assistance of the courts to compel his uncle and the other men to cease their beatings and threats”
“The appellant has provided no evidence of any effort or attempt by him to access state protection in India,” it said.
While acknowledging the beatings suffered, the tribunal found they did not meet the threshold required under refugee law. Tribunal noted that a fourth occasion, on which they threatened the appellant’s family and damaged some property in the course of looking for him, may be a "continuation of their adverse interest in him but it is not an escalation."
It further concluded that the appellant had not shown that Indian authorities were unable or unwilling to protect him, stating that “he has not established that the state of India is unable or unwilling to protect him.”
Could have relocated within India
The tribunal also found that the appellant could safely relocate within India, stating he could “reside safely in any one of the cities in the Punjab, such as Amritsar, Ludhiana or Jalandhar, or in Delhi or Mumbai”.
It rejected arguments that political or nationwide risks would follow him, stating such claims were “not supported by any evidence”.
“There is no possibility of [AA] or the other men even knowing that the appellant had returned to India, let alone in which city he was living, or where in that city. The evidence does not point to any risk in any of those locations of other forms of harm, or persecution for other reasons,” it said.
It also noted that reports cited did not signal widespread persecution of Christians relevant to the case. In it's own research, Tribunal observed and cited the conflict in Manipur, India, and said that conflict in Manipur was geographically distant and irrelevant.
“That ethnic conflict, however, is far from Uttarakhand (nearly 2,500 kilometres) and bears no relevance to the appellant’s case.”
No escalating risk
The tribunal rejected the argument that the March 2025 attack showed increasing danger, stating it did not amount to escalation or establish future risk.
“The Tribunal is satisfied that the risk to the appellant of serious harm arising from breaches of human rights in India is no more than speculative and remote.”
The tribunal also ruled that he did not meet the criteria for protection under the Convention Against Torture or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
“There are no substantial grounds for believing that the appellant is in danger of being subjected, in India, to severe mental or physical pain or suffering for any of the prescribed purposes with any of the prescribed involvement of a public official”.
In its conclusion, the tribunal held that the appellant is not a refugee.
The Tribunal found that the appellant “is not a refugee within the meaning of the Refugee Convention and therefore is not a refugee under section 129 of the Act”. It further held that he is not a protected person under the Convention Against Torture and therefore not a protected person under section 130 of the Act. It also found that he is not a protected person under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and therefore not a protected person under section 131 of the Act.
“The appeal is dismissed,” the Tribunal noted.