Immigration & Protection Tribunal Rejects Claimant's Appeal for Refugee Status

OUTCOME: Dismissed

\IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 802956 RŌPŪ TAKE MANENE, TAKE WHAKAMARU AOTEAROA

Appellant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

Before: S Benson (Member)

Counsel for the Appellant: [redacted] [NAME_2] (17 April)

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing: 16 and 17 April 2026

Date of Decision: 30 April 2026 ___________________________________________________________________

DECISION __________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION [1] 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 Principal Issue on Appeal [2] The appellant claims to be at risk of serious harm from members of the [NAME_3] ([NAME_4]) and the police arising from his membership and activities for the [NAME_5] ([NAME_7]) ([NAME_8])) party. [3] The principal issue to be determined is whether the evidence is accepted. [4] For the reasons which follow, the Tribunal does not accept that the appellant is a member of the [NAME_10], that he was attacked, harmed or threatened by the [NAME_4] or the police. He has not established that he is at risk of serious harm if he returns to India.

2 THE APPELLANT’S CASE [5] The account which follows is a summary of the evidence given at the appeal hearing. It is assessed later. Evidence of the Appellant [6] The appellant is a Sikh man who is aged in his early twenties and lived in Z town in Haryana state. His grandfather, parents and two sisters still live in Z town. [7] The appellant completed Year 12 at high school and has not had employment in India. From about 15 years old, he has been involved in the [NAME_10] as a volunteer. He helped with camps organised by the party, for example, putting up posters, letting people know about them and helping to set up the camps. [8] The appellant belongs to the [NAME_10] because it provides education to stop drug addiction and works for the poor. The party camps provide medical treatment, which is not available to poor people in rural communities. It has been a long time, maybe when the appellant was quite young, since [NAME_18] (the party’s leader) has held a seat in parliament. The party is very popular in Punjab state where it is the majority party in the state parliament. [9] On 13 April 2022, the appellant became a member of the [NAME_10]. His membership was announced at a party camp. The party leader, [NAME_18], sent the appellant a letter, with a QR code linking to details of his membership. The letter (over 170 pages long) is a full information pack about the party. The letter is written in the English language. The appellant has limited English language abilities, but his sister reads English and tells him that the letter states information about [NAME_13] and the political history of India. [10] On 2 October 2022, the [NAME_10] held a camp at a gurdwara ([NAME_48]) in Y village. The event started at 10am and maybe 1,500 to 1,700 people attended. Party members spoke on a stage, including the party president from Haryana. They preached about the party and criticised the [NAME_4]. They explained, for example, that the [NAME_4] were spreading drugs amongst Sikh youths in the Punjab and wanted to stop them demanding a separate Sikh nation. There were tent areas where food was served, and doctors gave medical treatment to old and poor people. The appellant helped to serve food, directed people to the doctors, and shouted [NAME_13] slogans against the [NAME_4], such as “Victory to [NAME_13]” and

3 “Victory to the Sikh faith”. The appellant gave a speech on the stage, for 10 to 15 minutes, in which he criticised the [NAME_4] for suppressing Sikh development and he encouraged young people to join the [NAME_10] and to strive for a separate [NAME_13] nation. There is no media coverage of [NAME_10] camps because the media is controlled by the [NAME_4] government, but there may be YouTube videos. [11] The event finished at about 4:30 or 5pm. The appellant got on his motorcycle and started to ride home to Z town, five to 10 minutes away. He had gone about 1,500 metres, when a car overtook him and stopped right in front of him across the road. The appellant braked and stopped his motorcycle. The appellant noticed that there were [NAME_4] logo stickers on the back window and side window of the car. Four men got out of the car and threatened the appellant. They said things such as “Stop supporting the [NAME_8])”, “Don’t speak against the [NAME_4]” and that he should promote the [NAME_4]. The appellant replied that he would not leave the [NAME_10]. The men then attacked him. They punched him and hit him with hockey sticks. The appellant called out for help. A passerby on a motorcycle stopped and the attackers ran away. As they left, they said that the appellant should leave his party, or the consequences would not be good. [12] The passerby picked up the appellant’s motorbike and put it to the side of the road. They went on the passerby’s motorcycle to a hospital in Z town. At the hospital, the appellant received medical treatment, such as injections and medication. The appellant left the hospital after about 45 minutes. The passerby, who had stayed, took the appellant to his home. [13] At home, everyone said that the appellant should file a police complaint. The appellant and his father went on the father’s motorcycle to Z town police station. At the station, the appellant and father told the head of the police station that they wanted to file a police complaint against the [NAME_4]. However, the police officer refused to take the complaint. He said that they should not speak against the [NAME_4] and threatened to put the appellant and father behind bars. They left the station with no complaint filed. [14] The appellant saw, after one or two days, that his motorcycle had been retrieved by someone (perhaps his father) and was standing at his house. [15] The appellant’s father later told him that the passerby who took the appellant to the hospital was [NAME_14] — a friend of his father and a farmer from Y village.

4 [16] On 3 March 2023, the [NAME_10] held a medical and drug awareness camp at a gurdwara in Z town, about two kilometres from the appellant’s home. The event was attended by people from [NAME_10], the temple and members of the public. The appellant was involved in preparations for the camp. He put up posters to advertise the event, encouraged people to attend and helped to set up tents. The appellant went to the event with some friends. [17] The event started at about 10am. Medical treatment was provided. There were talks to make young people aware of the problems of drug addiction and false claims by the [NAME_4] against the [NAME_10] and [NAME_13]. The appellant made a short speech in which he encouraged young people to carry forward the teachings of their spiritual leaders, not to discriminate and to treat everyone equally. He explained that other political parties do not let Sikhs grow as a community or as a separate Sikh nation, as there had been before British rule in India. [18] The camp finished at about 4pm. After helping to clean up, the appellant left the area on his motorcycle at about 5 or 5:30pm. A short distance from the temple, where there were shops and market stalls, a car coming from the other direction stopped in front of him across the road, blocking his way. The appellant stopped his motorcycle. The car had a [NAME_4] sticker on the front windshield and a large flag (about a metre across) attached to the bonnet. Some men came out of the car and yelled at him saying something like that he was “still doing this work”. They punched him and beat him with hockey sticks. The appellant begged them to leave him alone, but they did not stop. The assailants took his mobile telephone, broke it and took it away. The appellant cried out for help. [NAME_47] heard him and came running to the scene to help him. The attackers then fled in their car. As they were leaving, one called out that, last time, the appellant was unhurt and, this time, he had escaped, but the next time they definitely would not spare him. [19] The appellant was badly beaten, with blood coming from his mouth. A shop worker took the appellant to the hospital in Z town. The appellant’s father came to him at the hospital. The appellant was treated at the hospital for about 90 minutes or two hours with an injection and painkillers. The doctor stitched his chin and applied bandages where the appellant was bruised, and his skin had been torn from being dragged on the road. After treatment, the father and appellant went home. The father later retrieved the appellant’s motorcycle.

5 [20] After the incident, on 5 March 2023, the appellant answered a call to his father’s telephone, when sitting next to his father. His father took the telephone and spoke to the person, who began swearing. The father went to another room to speak. He later told the appellant that the person had asked how long he could save his son, and they said that they would find the appellant and kill him. [21] There were similar telephone calls to the family’s landline. After five or six days, the appellant got a new telephone with a new number and there were also calls to that telephone. He believes that his father’s telephone number was known to the callers from posters for the event. He believes that his new telephone number was known to the callers because [NAME_4] has access to Aadhaar numbers given to obtain new telephone numbers. [22] When the appellant left his house, he noticed that an unknown person would follow him wherever he went and would wait at the end of the street when the appellant returned home. The appellant did not speak to the person following him, and no one came to his family home. [23] The appellant’s family were scared and decided that the appellant should live in X town, about an hour’s drive away, with his mother’s aunt. [24] At the end of March 2023, the appellant went to X town. While there, he had no contact from his [NAME_15]. However, after about 10 days, his grandmother (who lived there) said that some people had asked neighbours whether the appellant was living there. The appellant did not receive telephone calls while in X town. He had taken out his SIM card and used a relative’s telephone. [25] The father told the appellant that, in Z town, he had received further threatening telephone calls. His father stopped taking the calls. However, three or four days after the appellant had gone to X town, [NAME_4] people came to the father’s house. From April 2023 (when the appellant went to X town) and September 2023 (when he left India), there were many more visits by the [NAME_4], sometimes with the police. The father told him that the visitors used foul language and threatened the father, asking for how long he could keep the appellant in hiding and when was the appellant coming back. [26] In September 2023, the appellant came to New Zealand as the holder of a religious worker work visa. He was supposed to work for an employer at a [NAME_48] in Hamilton. The appellant stayed at a gurdwara, but he was not given work.

6 [27] While in New Zealand, the appellant has had no contact from his [NAME_15] in India. He has not carried out any work for the [NAME_10] because there is no work to do here. However, the appellant attended an event in Auckland city to support [NAME_13]. [28] The [NAME_15] continue to contact the appellant’s father in India. There is no pattern to their calls. They may call several times per week or not for two weeks. They always say that the appellant will return one day, and that will be his last time there. They come to the father’s house at no fixed time, day or night, using swear words and making threats. The father says that he has not told them where the appellant is, although they seem to know that the appellant is overseas. [29] The appellant’s father has performed similar work for the [NAME_10], such as organising and helping at party camps. The appellant thinks that the reason they have threatened to kill him and not his father is that the appellant has raised his voice against the [NAME_4] and encouraged young people to join the [NAME_10]. The appellant fears that he will be seriously harmed or killed by the [NAME_4], if he returns to India. Evidence of [NAME_14] [30] [NAME_14] provided a written statement (9 February 2026) and gave evidence at the hearing by audio-visual link from India. [31] [NAME_14] is 50 years old and has lived in Y village in Haryana state, India, since birth. He is married with children and works as a farmer. He is Sikh and a member of the [NAME_10]. [NAME_14] has known the appellant and his father since their births. [32] On 2 October 2022, at 12 or 12:30pm, [NAME_14] was riding his motorcycle from Y village to Z town, about five kilometres away. He was going to a market to buy pesticides for his crops. About a kilometre out of Y village, near to a Muslim memorial, he saw a motorcycle and car stopped ahead. Some people on the road were beating someone with sticks. When [NAME_14] arrived, the attackers ran in the direction of Z town, to their car, 40 or 50 feet away. [NAME_14] saw a flower displayed on a window of the car — a green rose, which is the symbol used by the [NAME_4]. [NAME_14] did not hear the attackers say anything. He was focused on helping the person who had been attacked, whom he recognised as the appellant.

7 [33] [NAME_14] took the appellant on his motorcycle to a doctor in Z town. He stayed for 45 to 60 minutes while the appellant received medical treatment. The appellant’s father, [NAME_16], arrived at the clinic during the treatment. [34] After medical treatment, they went to the appellant’s home in Z town, where [NAME_14] had some tea and snacks. They discussed who these people were and why they were after the appellant. It was said that the appellant was a diligent [NAME_10] worker and that rival parties did not like it. The appellant is known in his village as being connected to the [NAME_10]. After about 30 minutes, [NAME_14] went to the market, purchased the pesticides and returned home to Y village, arriving at about 3:30pm. Evidence of [NAME_17] [35] [NAME_17] provided a written statement (9 February 2026) and gave evidence at the hearing by audio-visual link from India. [36] [NAME_17] is 59 years old and lives in Z town in Haryana. He is married, has two sons and he is a farmer growing wheat and rice. [NAME_17] is Hindu and does not belong to a political party. [37] [NAME_17] is a neighbour to the appellant’s father, [NAME_16]. He is aware that the appellant was a member of the [NAME_10] because the appellant wore distinctive clothes worn by party members — a white under pant and a blue tunic. [38] [NAME_17] heard from the appellant’s father that, in October 2022, the appellant had been assaulted and that the father and appellant had lodged a police complaint. [39] On 3 March 2023, at about 6pm, [NAME_17] was returning from his farm to his home. He noticed a commotion at [NAME_16]’s house. [NAME_17] asked what had happened and [NAME_16] said that, maybe 10 minutes ago, the appellant had been beaten by the [NAME_4]. [NAME_17] saw the appellant inside the house, lying unconscious on a bed. The appellant looked as if he had been beaten half to death and that the [NAME_4] people had finished him off. He had not received any medical treatment. [40] After the attack on 3 March 2023, [NAME_17] saw some men came to [NAME_17]’s house. This happened again before the appellant left Z town, six or seven times after the appellant had left Z town and after he left India. The most recent visit was in January 2026. [NAME_17] knew of the visits because his dogs would bark if anyone passed by his house down the lane leading to the back of his property and the

8 front gate of [NAME_16]’s house. [NAME_17] also has cameras which monitor this area. If the dogs bark, he goes outside to check why they are barking, and he speaks to anyone there. [41] After the appellant had left Z town, some men came to [NAME_17]’s house. He recognised them as from the [NAME_4] because they had the [NAME_4] logo (a lotus flower) and the letters “[NAME_4]” on their shirt. They said that they were from the [NAME_4] and that they were looking for the appellant. A similar thing happened just a few days before the appellant left India in September 2023. Evidence of the Appellant’s Father, [NAME_16] [42] [NAME_16] (the father) provided a written statement (9 February 2026) and gave evidence at the hearing by audio-visual link from India. [43] The father is aged in his late 40s. He has worked for 25 years in his electronics shop in Z town. He has lived in Y village and for the 15 years or so in Z town. [44] In 2022, the father became a member of the [NAME_10]. He was not a member of a political party before this. When he joined [NAME_10], the party gave him a ticket which recorded when he became a member. The appellant became a member of the [NAME_10] and started his activities for them in 2022. The appellant was given a similar ticket to record his membership of the party. [45] The father states that the [NAME_10] leader, [NAME_18], has never been a member of any parliament. He believes that there is no other political party in India with a name similar to [NAME_5]. [46] On 2 October 2022, the appellant attended a medical and drug awareness camp organised by the [NAME_10] in Y village. The appellant later told the father that he had given a speech at the camp to spread awareness amongst the people there. [47] The father heard that the appellant had been attacked and was in [COMPANY_19] in Z town. The father arrived at about 7pm. He saw [NAME_14] there, who said that he had taken the appellant to the hospital on his motorcycle. The appellant was in a delicate state, unconscious and with injuries to his arms, legs, feet and hands. The treatment lasted six or seven hours. They returned home early the next morning.

9 [48] The next day, the father and appellant went to Z town police station to make a complaint that the [NAME_4] had attacked the appellant. [NAME_14] had seen [NAME_4] symbols on the car of the attackers. However, the police officer refused to accept the complaint and told them that, if they said anything against the [NAME_4], he would put the appellant and father behind bars. [49] On 3 March 2023, the appellant attended another medical camp organised by the [NAME_10] in Z town. The father heard that the appellant had again been attacked and was in hospital in Z town. At 5 or 5:30pm, the father went to the same hospital in Z town, where he learned that shopkeepers in Z town had taken the appellant there. The treatment lasted seven or eight hours and the father and appellant returned home early in the morning. After returning home, the father went with another person to retrieve the appellant’s motorcycle. [50] The father and appellant did not make a police complaint because, the first time, the police had threatened to put them behind bars. [51] After the attack on 3 March 2023, the appellant told the father that people were following him when he left the home. They did not speak to or touch him. The appellant also said that some people had stopped him on the way to Y village and told him to stop working for the [NAME_10] or it would not be good for him. The appellant then limited his movements out of the house. [52] After the attack on 3 March 2023, the father received three or four telephone calls from anonymous people who said that the appellant should stop working for the [NAME_10]. There were no calls to the appellant because his telephone call was destroyed in the attack on 3 March 2023, and he did not buy a replacement telephone. The family did not have a landline in their home. [53] The family were living in fear. They discussed sending the appellant to a safe place. In about mid-May 2023, he went to X town, where he stayed with relatives (his maternal grandmother and some aunts). [54] About a month and a half after the appellant went to X town, some people came to the family home in Z town. They asked where the appellant was living as they wanted to meet and work with him. The father thought that there was something not right about this and gave an excuse that the appellant had gone somewhere.

10 [55] The relatives in X town told the father that people were looking for the appellant there. The family decided that the appellant should leave the country. In September 2023, the appellant went to New Zealand. [56] After the appellant had left India, a neighbour ([NAME_17]) told the father that people had arrived at the neighbour’s house, five or six times, looking for the appellant. The father received telephone calls from people who said that they were the appellant’s friends and asking where he was. However, they would not give their names and the father thought that they were not friends. The father told them that the appellant was not there, but not that he had left India. The people making these calls did not threaten harm to the appellant. There were no visits by the police to the father’s house. [57] The father requests that the appellant’s appeal should be allowed. The appellant is the family’s only son and the family want him to live safely in New Zealand. Other Evidence and Submissions Received [58] In written submissions (14 and 23 April 2026), counsel submits that: (a) The appellant has given credible evidence that he has been targeted for his membership and activities for the [NAME_10]. (b) The appellant should be recognised as a refugee because he has a well-funded fear of persecution and there is a real chance that he will suffer serious harm if he returns to India. (c) The appellant should be recognised as a protected person under the 1984 [NAME_20] because there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be tortured if he returned to India. (d) There is no viable internal protection alternative available to the appellant. (e) The appellant should be recognised as a protected person because he is in danger of being subjected to arbitrary deprivation of life or cruel or degrading treatment contrary to Article 6(1) and Article 7 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

11 [59] Counsel refers to country information, including M Andrew “‘People Live in Fear’: Indian Protesters Call on NZ to Stand Up to Human Rights Abuses” The Spinoff (7 July 2020). [60] Following the hearing, the Tribunal referred materials and articles to counsel for comment: (a) “Who is [NAME_18], The [NAME_13] Who Won Sangrur Lok Sabha By-Poll” India.com (26 June 2022). (b) [NAME_21] “Who is [NAME_18]?” India Today (27 June 2022). (c) A Dey “What Comeback of [NAME_18], a [NAME_13], Means for Punjab Politics” The Print (29 June 2022). (d) [NAME_23] “[NAME_18]” (2024) International Journal of Research – Granthaalayah. (e) [NAME_24] “Decoding the Decline: Analyzing the [NAME_5]'s Setback in the Punjab Assembly Elections 2017 and 2022” (2025) 7(4) International Journal of Political Science and Governance 326. (f) Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada IND202274.E India: The [NAME_5] (Amritsar) ([NAME_26])) [[NAME_5] ([NAME_7]); [NAME_8]); [NAME_9](Amritsar); [NAME_5] (Amritsar) ([NAME_18])] Political Party, Including its Origin, Structure, Leadership, Objectives and Activities; Requirements and Procedures to Become a Member of the Party, Including Obtaining a Membership Card; Treatment of Party Members and Supporters by Authorities (2023–April 2025) (8 May 2025). (g) Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada IND202272.E India: The [NAME_5] ([NAME_27]) ([NAME_28])) Political Party, Including its Origin, Structure, Objectives, and Activities; Requirements and Procedures to Become a Member of the Party, Including Obtaining a Membership Card; Treatment of Party Members and Supporters by Authorities (2023–April 2025) (29 April 2025). (h) Parliament of India Member Detail: [NAME_7], [NAME_30] at https://sansad.in.

12 (i) India Today Sangrur Lok Sabha Election Results 2024: Sangrur Winning Candidates List and Vote Share at www.indiatoday.in. (j) “[NAME_18], [NAME_26]) Candidates Forfeit Security Deposits” Hindustan Times (6 June 2024). (k) India Votes All States Lok Sabha / Parliamentary Party-Wise Performance – 2019: Punjab (2019) at www.[NAME_31] (l) India Votes All States Lok Sabha / Parliamentary Party-Wise Performance – 2019: Haryana (2019) at www.[NAME_31] (m) India Votes All States Lok Sabha / Parliamentary Party-Wise Performance – 2024: Punjab (2024) at www.[NAME_31] (n) India Votes All States Lok Sabha / Parliamentary Party-Wise Performance – 2024: Haryana (2024) at www.[NAME_31] [61] Counsel made submissions in reply (23 April 2026). Information about [NAME_5] party and factions [62] Country information indicates that the [NAME_5] party (originally formed in 1920) splintered in the 1980s and 1990s into different factions, such as the [NAME_5] ([NAME_27]) party and the [NAME_5] (Amritsar) party — see Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada IND202272.E India: The [NAME_5] ([NAME_27]) ([NAME_28])) Political Party, Including its Origin, Structure, Objectives, and Activities; Requirements and Procedures to Become a Member of the Party, Including Obtaining a Membership Card; Treatment of Party Members and Supporters by Authorities (2023–April 2025) (29 April 2025) (“April 2025 IRB report”) (citations omitted): Sources note that the [NAME_5] ([NAME_9]) was formed in 1920. According to the Political Handbook of the World 2022-2023, a number of party leaders, including former chief minister [NAME_33], split off from the [NAME_9] to create their own party in 1986. The parties briefly reunited under [NAME_18] in 1987, but eventually ‘[f]actionalism … persisted,’ with various splinter groups and offshoots forming and dissolving. In the mid-1990s, Sikh religious leadership intervened to unify the party, resulting in ‘half a dozen’ of the more religious factions ‘briefly’ taking the name [NAME_9] (Amritsar). [NAME_18] in turn formed a separate party, the [NAME_5] ([NAME_7]) ([NAME_8])), which still exists and is now also ‘frequently’ called [NAME_9](Amritsar) ([NAME_26])).

13 [63] The [NAME_34] has been in coalitions with the [NAME_4] — see April 2025 IRB report (citations omitted): The [NAME_28]) formed an alliance with the [NAME_3] ([NAME_4]) in 1996 in advance of elections for the Lok Sabha [India's lower house of Parliament]. The [NAME_28]) and the [NAME_4] also joined forces for the Punjab Assembly elections in 1997, which they won. In 1998, the [NAME_28]) joined the [NAME_4]-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA). However, [in 2020] the [NAME_28]) left the NDA in response to [‘controvers[ial]’ agriculture laws passed by the central government. [64] The [NAME_4] has been a dominant party in Indian national politics of India as the ruling party of the Lok Sabha (national assembly) in 2014, 2019 and 2024. [65] However, the [NAME_34] has been in decline in Punjab state. In the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, it won 27.8 per cent of the votes and 2 of 13 seats — see India Votes All States Lok Sabha / Parliamentary Party-Wise Performance – 2019: Punjab (2019) at www.[NAME_31] In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, [NAME_34] won only 13.5 per cent of the votes and one of the 13 seats — see India Votes All States Lok Sabha / Parliamentary Party-Wise Performance – 2024: Punjab (2024) at www.[NAME_31] The [NAME_34] has also declined in recent Punjab state elections — see [NAME_24] “Decoding the Decline: Analyzing the [NAME_5]'s Setback in the Punjab Assembly Elections 2017 and 2022” (2025) 7(4) International Journal of Political Science and Governance 326, at p326: [NAME_5] ([NAME_9]) is the oldest regional political party of India which came into existence before the independence of the country. It has historically represented the interests of the Sikh community and has been a key player in the Punjab political landscape since the reorganization of the state in 1966. The party, which had been dominant force in the Punjab politics for decades, suffered an awful decline after the Punjab Vidhan Sabha Elections 2017 and 2022. The [NAME_9] won 15 seats in 2017 Assembly elections and failed to don itself with the opposition party status. In Punjab Assembly polls 2022, [NAME_9] won only 3 seats, which is its worst-ever electoral performance since its inception in 1920s. … This decline was due to a combination of internal party defection, shifting public sentiment and growing discontent over its alliance with [NAME_3] ([NAME_4]), which alienated many Sikh voters. Furthermore, the poor handling of issues such as farm distress, drug addiction, sand mafia and the sacrilege incidents eroded its support base drastically. Besides this, the emergence of new political party, the Aam Aadami Party (AAP), also played a crucial role in diminishing the [NAME_9]’s dominance in the state. [66] The [NAME_10] (also known as [NAME_5] (Amritsar) or [NAME_26]) party) has been led throughout by [NAME_18]. [NAME_10] has struggled to win seats in elections in India. The party did not win any seats in Lok Sabha elections in 1996, 1998, 2004, 2007, 2012 and 2019. Its sole successes since 1989 in the Lok Sabha were in 1999 and a 2022 by-election and in Punjab

14 state elections in 1997 — see [NAME_23] “[NAME_18]” (2024) International Journal of Research – Granthaalayah: The [[NAME_26])] party's biggest success was in the 1989 Indian general elections, when it won 6 out of 13 seats in Punjab. The party adopts the ideology of Punjabi and Sikh nationalism. Moreover, the party also won the Sangrur assembly in 1999 and 2022 (by-election). Additionally, [NAME_7] said his first priority would be to ‘work with the Punjab government’ to ‘improve the economy of the poor in Sangrur, including indebted farmers.’ … The only time [Members of Legislative Assembly] belonging to [NAME_35]) were elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly was in the 1997 elections when [NAME_36]'s won from the Sadurgarh constituency defeating the [NAME_5] candidate by 3,117 votes. [67] In 2024, [NAME_18] was not re-elected to the Lok Sabha — see, for example, “[NAME_18], [NAME_26]) Candidates Forfeit Security Deposits” Hindustan Times (6 June 2024). ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT’S CLAIM [68] Under section 198 of the Immigration Act 2009 (“the Act”), on an appeal concerning refugee or protected person status under section 194(1)(c), the Tribunal must determine (in this order) whether to recognise the appellant as: (a) a refugee under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“[NAME_41]” or “the Convention”) (section 129); and (b) a protected person under the 1984 [NAME_20] (section 130); and (c) a protected person under the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“[NAME_39]”) (section 131). [69] There is a statutory obligation on the appellant, under section 226(1) of the Act, to establish his claim: It is the responsibility of an appellant or affected person to establish his or her case or claim, and the appellant or affected person must ensure that all information, evidence, and submissions that he or she wishes to have considered in support of the appeal or matter are provided to the Tribunal before it makes its decision on the appeal or matter. [70] In determining whether the appellant is a refugee or a protected person, it is necessary to identify the facts against which the assessment is to be made. Section 218(1) of the Act recognises that the Tribunal is a “specialist body” that has the role of deciding appeals and matters by:

15 … making findings of fact, applying the relevant law and making a determination. [71] This requires the assessment of the evidence presented in support of the appellant’s case. As explained in [NAME_40]) [2025] NZIPT 802417, in line with New Zealand’s obligations under international law, the Act and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal and High Court, the Tribunal makes an assessment of the evidence presented in support of the appellant’s case in order to make findings of fact, including through an assessment of credibility. In this assessment, only evidence to which no credence can be attached is discounted. The rest of the evidence is either accepted or afforded the benefit of the doubt and given weight. A risk assessment proceeds on the findings of fact — see [NAME_40]) at [78]. Assessment of the Evidence [72] The Tribunal accepts that: the appellant is a national of India from Z town in Haryana state; he is of Indian ethnicity; and his religion is Sikh. [73] However, the Tribunal does not accept that the appellant is a member of the [NAME_8]) political party in India or that he has been attacked or harmed for his connections to the party. [74] The appellant and his father were unaware of important political developments for the [NAME_10]. Country information explains that the [NAME_10] obtained seats in the Lok Sabha in 1999 and in a by-election in 2022, both won by the leader, [NAME_18]. However, when asked when the leader last held a seat in the Lok Sabha, the appellant stated that it was “a long time ago”. He was not aware that the [NAME_28]) (the party associated with the [NAME_27] family) also bears the [NAME_5] name. The appellant was not correct to say that the [NAME_10] was popular in Punjab state. Although the [NAME_34] has won seats in Punjab state and, in fact, was in coalition with the [NAME_4], in the 21st century, [NAME_10] has only won one seat in the Lok Sabha. [NAME_10] received only 0.4 per cent of the votes in Punjab state in the 2019 election and 3.8 per cent in 2024; see India Votes All States Lok Sabha / Parliamentary Party-Wise Performance – 2019: Punjab (2019) at www.[NAME_31] and India Votes All States Lok Sabha / Parliamentary Party- Wise Performance – 2024: Punjab (2024) at www.[NAME_31] It appears that [NAME_8]) did not contest the 2019 Lok Sabha election in Haryana and obtained only 0.2 per cent of the votes in 2024; see India Votes All States Lok Sabha / Parliamentary Party-Wise Performance – 2019: Haryana (2019) at

16 www.[NAME_31] and India Votes All States Lok Sabha / Parliamentary Party- Wise Performance – 2024: Haryana (2024) at www.[NAME_31] Like the appellant, the father was unaware that there were two political parties in Punjab and Haryana with the name [NAME_5] ([NAME_8]) and [NAME_28])). The appellant and father had only a superficial grasp of politics in Haryana and Punjab, which indicated that they did not have a genuine or real involvement in politics. [75] The appellant stated that he was first involved with the [NAME_10] when he was 15 years old, in 2018 or 2019. This was consistent with the Refugee Status Unit’s decision, which stated that he began with [NAME_10] in 2018 after he was introduced to the party by his father. However, the father’s evidence was that they both joined the [NAME_10] in 2022 and that they were not involved with the party before that. [76] The Tribunal does not accept that the appellant gave genuine evidence of his membership of [NAME_10] in India. He referred to a letter to him from the [NAME_8]) president as proof of membership, but that was dated in October 2024, after he arrived in New Zealand. The appellant said that his membership was confirmed by scanning a QR code on the letter. However, that document did not state when he became a [NAME_10] member. The father stated, on the other hand, that he and the appellant had physical membership documents stating when they joined the [NAME_10]. However, these documents were not produced to the Tribunal. [77] There was no independent evidence of [NAME_10] camps in Y village and Z town. The appellant did not obtain statements from party members or friends at the events. There were no media reports, despite large numbers there. Even if, as he said, the media did not report [NAME_10]’s activities, there was no social media. It was improbable the [NAME_10], seeking to increase its political profile in the area, would not produce some social media. [78] The Tribunal does not accept that, on 2 October 2022, the appellant was attacked. The evidence had many inconsistencies. [NAME_14] stated that he saw the attack, but his timing of the events was fundamentally different to the appellant. The appellant said that the attack was after he left the [NAME_10] camp at 4:30 or 5pm. However, [NAME_14] said that he saw the appellant on the road, during the attack, at 12 to 12:30pm. [NAME_14] said that he took the appellant to a hospital, waited for him to be treated, went with the appellant and father to their home, talked with them for 30 minutes, stopped at the market in Z town and returned to his home in Y village by 3:30pm, all well before the appellant said that he was attacked. The

17 time for the appellant’s medical treatment varied considerably between the appellant (45 minutes) and father (6 or 7 hours). The father said that he saw the appellant unconscious at the hospital. However, if the appellant was unconscious, [NAME_14] could not have transported him to the hospital on a motorcycle. [79] As it is not accepted that there was an attack on 2 October 2022, the Tribunal does not accept that the appellant and father went to a police station to file a complaint about the attack. [80] The Tribunal does not accept that, on 3 March 2023, the appellant was again attacked. There were serious inconsistencies in the evidence. [NAME_17] stated that, just after the attack, he saw the appellant lying unconscious on a bed at his home. However, the appellant stated that he was taken directly from the assault to the hospital on a motorbike — he did not go home first, and, if unconscious, he could not have been transported on a motorcycle. There was also a difference in the time given for medical treatment by the appellant (90 minutes to 2 hours) and his father (7 to 8 hours). [81] The appellant produced hospital notes for his medical treatment on 2 October 2022 and 3 March 2023 which were not credible. The appellant said that he needed stiches after the attack on 3 March 2023, but the notes stated that the more serious injuries were on 2 October 2022 and did not refer to stiches. The notes were typed in the English language, but the appellant could not read this language. Further, the 2 October 2022 note was not professionally written, stating that “blood was snoozing from [the appellant’s] month”. Given also the evidential discrepancies about the attacks, the Tribunal does not accept that the hospital notes are genuine records of medical treatment given to the appellant. [82] The Tribunal does not accept that, after 3 March 2023, the appellant was followed when leaving his home in Z town. It made no sense for the attackers to simply watch the appellant when they had recently physically attacked him and had threatened to cause further harm to him. [83] The Tribunal does not accept that the appellant and father received threatening telephone calls after 3 March 2023. The appellant said that the calls were to the appellant’s new telephone (replacing his telephone broken and taken on 3 March 2023), a home landline and the father’s telephone. However, the father inconsistently stated that the appellant did not replace his lost telephone and that the family home did not have a landline. The appellant suggested that the [NAME_15] had the father’s telephone number from a poster advertising a

18 [NAME_10] event, but this was not plausible as the father was not involved in and did not attend the event. The appellant suggested that the [NAME_4] obtained the telephone number by tracing Aadhaar cards numbers given when the SIM card and telephone number were given. However, it was not credible that [NAME_43] knew the father’s name, obtained his Aadhaar card number and then his telephone number. [84] Given that the Tribunal does not accept that the appellant was attacked in October 2022 and March 2023, the Tribunal does not accept that there was later harassment of the father, [NAME_17] and relatives in X town. In any event, there were discrepancies in that evidence, with the appellant referring to far more contact than the father stated and the father and neighbour differing as to which house was visited more than the other. The appellant stated that his father had been visited by the police, but the father was clear that police did not visit him. [85] The Tribunal does not expect witnesses’ evidence to align perfectly. However, there were so many discrepancies that the witnesses were, at worst, untruthful or, at best, not reliable. In the hearing, the appellant and witnesses were often evasive and failed to directly answer questions, making it necessary to repeat questions, sometimes several times. The evidence frequently changed, was contradictory, did not make sense and was inconsistent with relevant country information.

For these reasons, the Tribunal gives no credence to the core elements of the appellant’s claim that he was a member of the [NAME_10], that he attended [NAME_10] events in October 2022 and March 2023, that he was assaulted after the events, that he received medical treatment for injuries caused in the attacks, that he and his father tried to make a police complaint about the first attack and that the appellant was later threatened with harm or death by [NAME_43]. [86] Subject to the foregoing findings, the Tribunal accepts the balance of the evidence presented in support of the appellant’s case. [NAME_41] [87] Section 129(1) of the Act provides that: A person must be recognised as a refugee in accordance with this Act if he or she is a refugee within the meaning of [NAME_41].

19 [88] Article 1A(2) of [NAME_41] provides that a refugee is a person who: ... owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it. [89] In determining what is meant by “well-founded” in Article 1A(2) of the Convention, the Tribunal adopts the approach in [NAME_42] v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379, where it was held that a fear of being persecuted is established as well-founded when there is a real, as opposed to a remote or speculative, chance of it occurring. The standard is entirely objective — see Refugee Appeal No 76044 (11 September 2008) at [57]; and HX (China) [2023] NZIPT 802189 at [55]–[60]. [90] “Being persecuted” requires serious harm arising from the breach of internationally recognised human rights, demonstrative of a failure of state protection — see DS (Iran) [2016] NZIPT 800788, at [114]–[130] and [177]–[183]. [91] The principal issues are, as explained in Refugee Appeal No 70074 (17 September 1996), affirmed by the Tribunal in DS (Iran) [2016] NZIPT 800788, at [213]: (a) Objectively, on the facts as found, is there a real chance of the appellant being persecuted in the country of nationality? (b) If the answer is yes, is there a Convention reason for that persecution? Objectively, on the Facts as Found, is There a Real Chance of the Appellant Being Persecuted in India? Relevant country information [92] Country information relevant to the [NAME_8]) and [NAME_28]) parties is stated at [62]–[67], above. The Tribunal also notes that, in general, India is a vast country of many ethnicities, cultures, religions and languages. Country information indicates that, while it is a democratic state which generally respects the rule of law, human rights violations occur. The United States Department of State 2024 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: India (12 August 2025) records

20 numerous human rights concerns in India in its executive summary, including credible reports of arbitrary or unlawful killings; disappearances; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; arbitrary arrest or detention; transnational repression against individuals in another country; serious abuses in a conflict; unlawful recruitment or use of children in armed conflicts by Maoist non-state groups; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including violence or threats of violence against journalists, unjustified arrests or prosecutions of journalists, and censorship; and instances of coerced abortion or forced sterilisation. Application to the facts [93] The appellant claims that, if he returns to India, he is at risk of serious physical harm or death from [NAME_43]. This is based on the appellant’s claim that, in October 2022 and March 2023, he was assaulted and threatened with harm or death by [NAME_43] because of his membership and activities for the [NAME_10] and that they have made further. However, for the reasons stated above, the Tribunal does not accept that the appellant was a member of the [NAME_10], that he attended [NAME_8]) events in October 2022 and March 2023, that he was assaulted after the events, that he received medical treatment for injuries caused in the attacks, that he and his father tried to make a police complaint about the first attack and that the appellant was later threatened with harm or death by [NAME_43]. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the appellant has a political or other profile of interest to the [NAME_4] or anyone else. The Tribunal finds that the appellant has not established that there is a real chance of him suffering serious harm in India. Conclusion on risk of being persecuted [94] For these reasons, objectively, on the facts as found, there is not a real chance of the appellant suffering serious harm arising from breaches of human rights. The appellant does not have a well-founded fear of being persecuted. Conclusion on Claim to Refugee Status [95] For the foregoing reasons, the appellant is not recognised as a refugee.

21 [NAME_44] [96] Section 130(1) of the Act provides that: A person must be recognised as a protected person in New Zealand under [NAME_44] if there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture if deported from New Zealand. Assessment of the Claim under [NAME_20] [97] Section 130(5) of the Act provides that torture has the same meaning as in [NAME_44], Article 1(1) of which states that torture is: … any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. [98] The appellant relies upon the same evidence for this part of his appeal as he does for his claim to refugee status. The same findings of credibility and fact apply.

For the reasons given above, the appellant is not at risk of being subjected to severe mental or physical pain or suffering for any of the prescribed purposes with any of the prescribed involvement of a public official.

Accordingly, the appellant is not recognised as a protected person in New Zealand under [NAME_44]. Conclusion on Claim under [NAME_20] [99] For the above reasons, the appellant is not a protected person under section 130 of the Act. [NAME_39] [100] Section 131 of the Act provides that: (1) A person must be recognised as a protected person in New Zealand under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights if there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to arbitrary deprivation of life or cruel treatment if deported from New Zealand. ...

22 (6) In this section, cruel treatment means cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Assessment of the Claim under [NAME_39] [101] The appellant relies upon the same evidence for this part of the appeal as for the claim to refugee status. The same findings of credibility and fact apply. [102] The Tribunal reminds itself that the threshold for the gravity of the harm required under [NAME_39] is not less than the threshold required to establish “being persecuted” in the context of [NAME_41] (to which protected person status is complementary, not dominant). That is to say, the harm must be serious — see, in this regard, AC (Syria) [2011] NZIPT 800035 at [82] and Taunoa v Attorney General [2007] NZSC 70, [2008] 1 NZLR 429. [103] For the reasons given above, the appellant is not in danger of being arbitrarily deprived of life or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Accordingly, the appellant is not recognised as a protected person in New Zealand under [NAME_39]. Conclusion on Claim under ICCPR [104] For the above reasons already given, the appellant is not a protected person within the meaning of section 131(1) of the Act.

CONCLUSION [105] For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal finds that the appellant: [redacted] is not a refugee within the meaning of [NAME_41] and, therefore, is not a refugee under section 129 of the Act; (b) is not a protected person within the meaning of Article 1(1) of [NAME_44] and, therefore, is not a protected person under section 130 of the Act; (c) is not a protected person within the meaning of the relevant elements of Articles 6 and 7 of [NAME_39] and, therefore, is not a protected person under section 131 of the Act. [106] The appeal is dismissed.

23 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

S Benson Member Order as to Depersonalised and Abridged Research Copy [107] The disclosure of parts of this decision beyond the parties (and those to whom disclosure is permitted by section 151(2)) would tend to identify the appellants and/or be likely to endanger the safety of the appellant or others. [108] Pursuant to clause 19 of Schedule 2 of the Act, the Tribunal orders that, until further order, the indicated parts of the decision are to be redacted by removal of names and particulars likely to lead to the identification of the appellant from the research copy of this decision. “S Benson” S Benson Member