Indian couple’s fourth refugee claim rejected as Tribunal says claims ‘border on the abusive’
-Aug-21-2026-12-56-54-9795-AM.jpg?width=740&height=400&name=KIA%20ORA%20(1)-Aug-21-2026-12-56-54-9795-AM.jpg)
An Indian Sikh couple who have made four refugee and protected-person claims in New Zealand have had their latest appeal dismissed by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, which said the latest claims “border on the abusive”.
“Lodging a claim for refugee and protected person status comes with a duty of candour,” the Tribunal said.
The couple, who were born in the mid-1960s into Sikh families in the Jammu region of Jammu and Kashmir, arrived in New Zealand on 7 December 2018.
Their first refugee and protected-person claims were based on a fear of being “seriously harmed because of armed conflict between the Indian Army Border Security Forces and the Pakistan Armed Forces”.
They said the property where they lived was close to the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir and that they feared being harmed because of the infiltration of terrorist insurgents into the village.
The first claims were declined by the Refugee Status Unit, and their appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal after it concluded that they did not have “a well-founded fear of being persecuted in India, nor were they in danger of any harm entitling them to protected person status”.
The couple had admitted they had not given a truthful account to the Refugee Status Unit.
According to their new account, the wife had never lived in the village and the husband had not lived there since joining the army as a teenager in the 1970s.
The husband had spent the majority of his adult life working in another country. Neither appellant had faced any situation of danger or had any personal encounter with terrorism or violence in Jammu, although both expressed the view that the border area was unsafe.
On 2 September 2022, the couple lodged their second claims, saying there had been an “intensification of terrorist activity in the vicinity of the border with Pakistan”.
The country information before the Tribunal did not establish that there had been an intensification of unrest or conflict at the border or in the Jammu region generally.
The couple also claimed they were, and had been, supporters of the Khalistan movement since the 1980s, when the husband deserted from the military.
“They also claimed that the husband was a Sikh priest and, for that reason, would be viewed by the authorities as a supporter of Khalistan.”
They also claimed they were at risk of harm from a moneylender in India.
On 28 February 2024, the Tribunal dismissed their appeals, finding that the husband had not established by credible evidence that he was a priest rather than a security guard at the gurudwara.
The Tribunal findings said, “While the appellants may have been sympathetic to the Khalistan cause, it was not plausible that they were supporters of the Khalistan independence movement, such as to place them in danger.”
“They had raised no such concern during their first claims,” the Tribunal said.
The Tribunal also found that the husband faced no risk as an army deserter. It noted that he had not raised this as a concern during his first claim and had made a number of trips in and out of India, without difficulty, to visit his family.
“On none of those engagements with Indian border, customs, and immigration authorities, had he encountered any problems,” the Tribunal noted.
It also found that the couple’s claims of being at risk from the moneylender were not credible.
The Tribunal said country information indicated that active supporters of the Khalistan movement, "including in a leadership role such as Amritpal Singh, face a risk of reprisals from the Indian government, the appellants had no such profile."
The couple’s third claims were lodged on 4 July 2024 and related to the husband’s “active support for Khalistan prior to 1984”, which they claimed had seen him living in hiding for extended periods when he returned to India from working abroad.
The Refugee Status Unit refused to consider the third claims under section 140(3) of the Immigration Act because they were considered manifestly unfounded and repeated a previous claim.
There was no right of appeal to the Tribunal against that decision, and the Refugee Status Unit’s decision was not challenged in the High Court.
The couple’s fourth claims were lodged on 19 March 2025.
They claimed they were at risk of harm from the husband’s brothers, who had allegedly issued repeated death threats since about 2017 over control of family land.
The couple claimed their daughter was confronted by the brothers during a recent visit to their village and “issued a direct warning” that the brothers would kill the couple if they returned to India.
They also claimed police refused to intervene or register their complaint, saying it was a private family matter.
The Refugee Status Unit refused to consider the fourth claims, finding they did not disclose a “significant change in circumstances material to the claim since the previous claim was determined”.
In a letter to the counsel, the Tribunal said the dispute over the ancestral land existed before the determination of their previous claims and, indeed, before their first claims.
“It was always open to the appellants to raise this during the currency of their previous claims. That they have chosen to raise it now does not make it a significant change in circumstances material to the claim,” the Tribunal said.
It also said that, insofar as the threats over the ancestral land had continued after the third claims were determined, this appeared to be “no more than a continuation, rather than an intensification”.
The couple were given until 4pm on 11 June 2026 to provide a response or comment, together with anything further they wanted the Tribunal to take into account.
However, no submissions or evidence were received.
In its assessment, the Tribunal said the couple’s fourth claims “border on the abusive”.
It said the ancestral-land dispute could have been raised in any of their three previous claims.
“Lodging a claim for refugee and protected person status comes with a duty of candour.”
The Tribunal said this duty did not allow claimants to “cherry-pick” matters of concern and leave other issues to be raised after an unsuccessful claim.
“This duty does not permit claimants to cherry-pick which matters of concern they wish to present for consideration, leaving other matters to be raised in the event they are disappointed with the outcome of the first claim.”
“The jurisdictional threshold is not met and the appeals must fail,” the Tribunal concluded.
The Tribunal found that the couple’s fourth claims, which resulted in their third appeals, did not establish a significant change in circumstances material to the claims.
Under section 200(2) of the Immigration Act, the Tribunal must dismiss an appeal if it determines there has been no significant change in circumstances material to the claim.
The appeals were dismissed.
An Indian Sikh couple who have made four refugee and protected-person claims in New Zealand have had their latest appeal dismissed by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, which said the latest claims “border on the abusive”.“Lodging a claim for refugee and protected person status comes with a...
An Indian Sikh couple who have made four refugee and protected-person claims in New Zealand have had their latest appeal dismissed by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, which said the latest claims “border on the abusive”.
“Lodging a claim for refugee and protected person status comes with a duty of candour,” the Tribunal said.
The couple, who were born in the mid-1960s into Sikh families in the Jammu region of Jammu and Kashmir, arrived in New Zealand on 7 December 2018.
Their first refugee and protected-person claims were based on a fear of being “seriously harmed because of armed conflict between the Indian Army Border Security Forces and the Pakistan Armed Forces”.
They said the property where they lived was close to the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir and that they feared being harmed because of the infiltration of terrorist insurgents into the village.
The first claims were declined by the Refugee Status Unit, and their appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal after it concluded that they did not have “a well-founded fear of being persecuted in India, nor were they in danger of any harm entitling them to protected person status”.
The couple had admitted they had not given a truthful account to the Refugee Status Unit.
According to their new account, the wife had never lived in the village and the husband had not lived there since joining the army as a teenager in the 1970s.
The husband had spent the majority of his adult life working in another country. Neither appellant had faced any situation of danger or had any personal encounter with terrorism or violence in Jammu, although both expressed the view that the border area was unsafe.
On 2 September 2022, the couple lodged their second claims, saying there had been an “intensification of terrorist activity in the vicinity of the border with Pakistan”.
The country information before the Tribunal did not establish that there had been an intensification of unrest or conflict at the border or in the Jammu region generally.
The couple also claimed they were, and had been, supporters of the Khalistan movement since the 1980s, when the husband deserted from the military.
“They also claimed that the husband was a Sikh priest and, for that reason, would be viewed by the authorities as a supporter of Khalistan.”
They also claimed they were at risk of harm from a moneylender in India.
On 28 February 2024, the Tribunal dismissed their appeals, finding that the husband had not established by credible evidence that he was a priest rather than a security guard at the gurudwara.
The Tribunal findings said, “While the appellants may have been sympathetic to the Khalistan cause, it was not plausible that they were supporters of the Khalistan independence movement, such as to place them in danger.”
“They had raised no such concern during their first claims,” the Tribunal said.
The Tribunal also found that the husband faced no risk as an army deserter. It noted that he had not raised this as a concern during his first claim and had made a number of trips in and out of India, without difficulty, to visit his family.
“On none of those engagements with Indian border, customs, and immigration authorities, had he encountered any problems,” the Tribunal noted.
It also found that the couple’s claims of being at risk from the moneylender were not credible.
The Tribunal said country information indicated that active supporters of the Khalistan movement, "including in a leadership role such as Amritpal Singh, face a risk of reprisals from the Indian government, the appellants had no such profile."
The couple’s third claims were lodged on 4 July 2024 and related to the husband’s “active support for Khalistan prior to 1984”, which they claimed had seen him living in hiding for extended periods when he returned to India from working abroad.
The Refugee Status Unit refused to consider the third claims under section 140(3) of the Immigration Act because they were considered manifestly unfounded and repeated a previous claim.
There was no right of appeal to the Tribunal against that decision, and the Refugee Status Unit’s decision was not challenged in the High Court.
The couple’s fourth claims were lodged on 19 March 2025.
They claimed they were at risk of harm from the husband’s brothers, who had allegedly issued repeated death threats since about 2017 over control of family land.
The couple claimed their daughter was confronted by the brothers during a recent visit to their village and “issued a direct warning” that the brothers would kill the couple if they returned to India.
They also claimed police refused to intervene or register their complaint, saying it was a private family matter.
The Refugee Status Unit refused to consider the fourth claims, finding they did not disclose a “significant change in circumstances material to the claim since the previous claim was determined”.
In a letter to the counsel, the Tribunal said the dispute over the ancestral land existed before the determination of their previous claims and, indeed, before their first claims.
“It was always open to the appellants to raise this during the currency of their previous claims. That they have chosen to raise it now does not make it a significant change in circumstances material to the claim,” the Tribunal said.
It also said that, insofar as the threats over the ancestral land had continued after the third claims were determined, this appeared to be “no more than a continuation, rather than an intensification”.
The couple were given until 4pm on 11 June 2026 to provide a response or comment, together with anything further they wanted the Tribunal to take into account.
However, no submissions or evidence were received.
In its assessment, the Tribunal said the couple’s fourth claims “border on the abusive”.
It said the ancestral-land dispute could have been raised in any of their three previous claims.
“Lodging a claim for refugee and protected person status comes with a duty of candour.”
The Tribunal said this duty did not allow claimants to “cherry-pick” matters of concern and leave other issues to be raised after an unsuccessful claim.
“This duty does not permit claimants to cherry-pick which matters of concern they wish to present for consideration, leaving other matters to be raised in the event they are disappointed with the outcome of the first claim.”
“The jurisdictional threshold is not met and the appeals must fail,” the Tribunal concluded.
The Tribunal found that the couple’s fourth claims, which resulted in their third appeals, did not establish a significant change in circumstances material to the claims.
Under section 200(2) of the Immigration Act, the Tribunal must dismiss an appeal if it determines there has been no significant change in circumstances material to the claim.
The appeals were dismissed.
Related Posts
ISSUE
Leave a Comment