Refugee and Protected Person Status Claims Rejected by Tribunal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 802918–922 RŌPŪ TAKE MANENE, TAKE WHAKAMARU AOTEAROA

Appellants: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted]

Before: S Benson (Member)

Counsel for the Husband: [NAME_2]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing: 31 March and 13 April 2026

Date of Decision: 23 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 appellants, a husband and wife and their three children, all citizens of India. [2] As the children are minors, section 375 of the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act) requires that a responsible adult be appointed. The wife (their mother) is the responsible adult for them for the purposes of this appeal. The Principal Issue on Appeal [3] The appellants claim to be at risk of serious harm from moneylenders in India. The principal issue to be determined is whether the evidence is accepted and whether the risk of harm in India is serious.

2 [4] For the reasons which follow, the Tribunal accepts that the husband and wife owe money to moneylenders, but it does not accept that the appellants are at risk of serious harm in India. THE APPELLANTS’ CASE [5] The account which follows is a summary of the evidence given at the appeal hearing. It is assessed later. Evidence of [NAME_3], the Husband [6] [NAME_3] (the husband) gave a written statement (9 March 2026) and evidence at the hearing. [7] The husband is 46 years old. He was born and grew up in Z town in Kerala state, India. His parents continue to live in Z town. He has a brother, who lives in W country, and a sister, who lives in Tamil Nadu state, India. [8] The husband attended school until the equivalent of year 12 in New Zealand. Since his school days, the husband has been a member of the [NAME_4]. He had a social involvement in the party and was engaged in activities such as taking people to hospitals and distributing food to needy people. For six or seven years before leaving India, the husband was a team leader for the party in his local area. He is still a member of the party, but not active while living in New Zealand. [9] In 2009, the husband married his wife in Kerala. They lived in the husband’s family home in Z town. The couple obtained a bank loan to finance the construction of a home next to the family home. They have three children, who are now 16, 13 and 6 years old. [10] The wife grew up in X village, about 5 kilometres from the husband’s family home. Her parents and two brothers lived in Kerala. Before their marriage, the wife obtained Bachelor of Commerce and Master of Commerce degrees from a university in Kerala. [11] From before and after his marriage, the husband lived in W country, where he worked with an electrician and for a labour supply company. His wife and children remained in India.

3 [12] In 2016, the husband returned to India and started a tourism business, with money saved from working in W country. The business provided river cruises, a homestay and taxi service. [13] The wife helped in the business, as needed, for example, with accounting work. She has also worked in India, for about a year, as a receptionist at a learning centre for children with special needs. For several years until they left India, she was employed from home by an online company, helping people to obtain passports and download government documents through an online portal. [14] In 2017, the husband borrowed 2 lakhs for his business from [NAME_5], who lives in V town, near to Z city. The husband is uncertain of [NAME_5]’s occupation and whether he is married. [NAME_5] is a private lender, not a licensed moneylender, meaning that he has no company registered with the government to pay tax. As a private lender, [NAME_5] does not provide written contracts or usual paperwork for loans. [NAME_5] paid the money to the husband in cash and the husband did not put the money in a bank. He used it to contribute to the purchase of a boat and equipment for the business. [15] About six months later, the husband borrowed another 2 lakhs from [NAME_5] to develop a customer parking area near to his boats. The husband believes that he borrowed about 1 lakh more in other loans from [NAME_5], so a total of 5 lakhs. [16] The loans were repayable in instalments plus interest of 5 per cent of the loan principal. [NAME_5] had security for the loans, that is, title papers to the husband’s vehicles — a 2015 Datsun Go Plus vehicle, a 2016 scooter and a 2019 Royal Enfield motorcycle. [17] At first, the husband paid INR5,000 or INR10,000 per week or fortnight, which he gave to [NAME_5] in cash and in person. [NAME_5] recorded the transactions in a book, which the husband signed. The husband does not have a record of the loans and has no idea what he has paid. [NAME_5] now says that the husband owes 8 lakhs, including compounded interest. [18] [NAME_5] was in constant contact with husband about loan payments. Many times, if an instalment was not paid, [NAME_5] went to the husband’s boating area, where he operated his business, and asked for the money to be paid right away. [NAME_5] threatened to make problems for the husband, to embarrass him in public about his debt and to attack him. This embarrassed the husband, if customers were

4 there. [NAME_5] would also talk to the husband in a loud and harsh way when he saw him in public places or at the husband’s home. [19] When the COVID-19 pandemic started in 2020, the husband’s business stopped. He had no customers or income. The husband got into a financial crisis and borrowed money from various people at different times. He cannot say how much money he borrowed. [20] In December 2021, the husband and wife had a holiday to V country. In 2022, the wife also went to U country for several months, to study an advanced accounting course to help with employment in other countries. [21] The husband and his family are Christians. One day, in 2022, they went to a Sunday service at their Catholic church, about 200 metres from their home in Z town. As the family were leaving the church service with other church members, the husband was confronted by [NAME_5] and four or five other men. [NAME_5] said that the husband had not paid the money, and that he wanted the money immediately. The husband said that he could not pay then. A verbal argument started, which became physical. The husband was hit on his head — he is not sure with what — and he became unconscious. He had bruises on his hands and a fracture to his leg. [22] The wife took the husband to a nearby government hospital, where he recovered consciousness and received medical treatment. His head wound was cleaned. He stayed in hospital for two or three days and had a minor operation. The husband does not have medical records from the hospital because he and his family left the area and came to New Zealand. [23] The police visited the husband in hospital. The husband did not make a complaint about the attack because he and his wife were on the wrong side. They owed money, and he did not want to escalate the problem. The husband did not register a case with the police and there are no police records. [24] On discharge from the hospital, the husband returned to his home in Z town. While there, he had a telephone call from [NAME_5], who said that the husband must pay the money or there would be more attacks. [25] A few days later, the family moved to the wife’s family home in X village. Since then, the husband has not had direct contact from [NAME_5]. The husband changed his telephone number and blocked [NAME_5]’s number. However, the wife’s mother told the husband that, a couple of times, [NAME_5] had been to the mother’s

5 house. he was told that [NAME_5] shouted that the husband was hiding from [NAME_5] and that he had to pay. The husband’s father also said that [NAME_5] had also been to the father’s home in Z town. The father said that [NAME_5] had come for the money. [NAME_5] made some noise and then left. [26] The husband, wife and children then moved to T city, about 30 or 35 kilometres from Z town. For several months, they lived in a rental property organised by a friend. [27] The children were scared by the problems with creditors. The husband’s daughter told him that there was a threat against her outside their home. The husband does not remember when this occurred or what she said had happened. [28] In March 2023, the husband, wife and children arrived in New Zealand as the holders of visitor visas. After some time, they could not obtain further visas to stay in New Zealand. In September 2023, the family lodged refugee and protected person claims. Following this, the husband and wife were granted work visas and the children now all have student visas. The husband and wife work for a cleaning company and send money to creditors in India to reduce their debts. The husband suffers from low mood, anxiety and type 2 diabetes. [29] In New Zealand, the husband and wife have had no contact from [NAME_5]. However, in Kerala, the husband’s parents have said that [NAME_5] has continued to ask (maybe three or four times) for the husband and his new address. The wife’s parents have said that, more often, [NAME_5] has arrived at their home. He wants his money back and makes noise and insults the parents. A lot of other creditors have been to the parents’ places and abused them as well. [30] In 2024, the bank that financed the building of the couple’s home in Z town sent notices to the husband demanding payment of loan instalments and interest. [31] In April 2025, the wife’s father was so distressed by the actions of the creditors that he tried to commit suicide by hanging himself at home. He was taken to hospital in an ambulance, but he died on the way there. [32] Following this event, senior members of the wife’s family (the husband is not sure who) met with the creditors and explained that the husband and wife were living in New Zealand and that they would pay their debts slowly. [NAME_5] was part of the group of creditors, and he also agreed to this. It was a verbal agreement and was not recorded in writing.

6 [33] From New Zealand, the husband and wife have been paying creditors slowly. In a diary, the wife has written all the creditors’ names, the amounts of the debts and payments. Some of the creditors have been repaid, but there are still over 30 more to pay. [NAME_5] is not in the diary. They have not paid much to [NAME_5] as they first want to pay the creditors who support them and need the money more than [NAME_5]. [34] The business assets have been sold. The husband and wife have not sold their house, which is worth maybe 30 to 35 lakhs and has a large debt to the bank. In 2022, the husband sold his Enfield motorcycle. He gave his Datsun car to a friend, and his scooter to his wife’s younger brother. The car and scooter have no significant value. [35] The husband fears that, if he returns to India without paying his debts, he will be harassed, harmed and his life will be in danger from his creditors. If he remains in New Zealand, he can repay all the debts. Evidence of [NAME_6], the Wife’s Brother [36] [NAME_6] gave a written statement (16 March 2026) and evidence at the hearing by audio-visual link from India [37] [NAME_6] is 35 years old, and a citizen of India. He was born and grew up in X village, Kerala state, India. He still lives in X village, about 15 minutes’ drive from the family home, with his wife and two children. [38] [NAME_6]’s sister is married to [NAME_3]. They have three children. The sister and [NAME_3] have problems with debts. They took their family to live in T city and then to New Zealand because of these problems. [39] Many creditors have come to the family home and harassed [NAME_6]’s father. One of the creditors pushed the father over. [NAME_6] saw creditors at the father’s house a couple of times and found this distressing. [NAME_6]’s mother told him that the creditors had threatened their lives. The mother did not know who these people were. [40] [NAME_6] has been troubled by one creditor at his house. About 18 to 20 months ago, a man named [NAME_7] came to [NAME_6]’s house about the debts of the sister and [NAME_3]. There was some pushing and pulling.

7 [41] The visits by creditors to the family home became less when the sister and [NAME_3] went to New Zealand. [42] In April 2025, [NAME_6]’s father was so troubled and depressed by the harassment from the creditors that he committed suicide. [NAME_6]’s mother continues to live in the family home with her other son ([NAME_6]’s brother). [43] After the death of [NAME_6]’s father, family members called a meeting with creditors. At least 16 creditors attended, and they came to an understanding that the sister and [NAME_3] would pay the debts gradually. Since this time, some creditors have come to the family home because payments have not been made. Evidence of [NAME_8], the Wife [44] [NAME_8] (the wife) gave evidence at the hearing. She is now 40 years old. The wife was born in and grew up in X village in Kerala state, India. Her father died in April 2025 and her mother, brother and sister live in X village. [45] The wife obtained Master of Commerce and Bachelor of Commerce degrees from a university in T city. In 2009, she married her husband, [NAME_3]. After marriage, they lived with the husband’s parents in Z town. They have three children, now aged 16, 14 and 6. [46] The wife and her husband are Catholics. He has been a member of the [NAME_4] in Kerala state and actively supported the party during elections, for example, by canvassing for votes. The wife does not know if the husband has held any official position in the party. [47] For many years before and for about eight years after their marriage, the husband worked in W country, where he had employment, but with a low salary. The husband started a real estate business, but the business failed and, when his employment ceased, the wife asked him to return to India. [48] The husband returned to India and, in about 2016, he started a boating and tourism business. In about 2017, they started building a house on land next to her husband’s parents’ house. They took possession of the house on the husband’s birthday in 2018. [49] The wife and husband have had debts since before their marriage. They took new loans to pay old loans, the total number of loans grew, and their debts accumulated. They were paying their expenses from week to week and the

8 problem got above their heads. The creditors asked them to pay through WhatsApp and often telephoned the husband. The husband and wife asked the creditors for more time to pay. If they failed to pay on time or the husband did not answer the calls, the creditors would come to their home to demand payment. When the COVID-19 pandemic started, the husband and wife could not pay the loans, and the problems started. [50] The husband owes money to a creditor named [NAME_5], who loaned a total of 5 lakhs to buy boats for his business. The husband and wife also used this money to pay their expenses, interest on other loans and employees’ salaries. The husband and wife were rolling over loans to pay other loans, so it is difficult to pinpoint the exact use of the loans from [NAME_5]. [51] There was no written loan agreement with [NAME_5]. He paid the money in cash and there are no bank records. The husband and wife recorded the loans and their interest payments (also in cash) in a diary. However, they have moved their address frequently, and the wife now cannot find the diary, which is somewhere in India. [NAME_5] has now demanded compound interest. [52] The wife and husband travelled to W country, in November 2021, and to V country, in December 2021. Their immigration agent said that, with a history of travel to other countries, they would have a better chance of entry to New Zealand. [53] In March 2022, the wife went to U country, as the holder of a visitor visa. The travel was funded by friends. The wife shared accommodation, studied in an accounting and computer course and worked part-time as a nanny and housekeeper. [54] In October 2022, the husband was attacked by [NAME_5]. The wife and husband were walking from a church service to their home, about a kilometre away. The wife thinks that the children were at home with the husband’s parents. About halfway home, they encountered a group of 10 to 15 people. The husband told her later that they were “party people”, meaning members of a political party. The wife does not know which party. These people spoke about the money owed to [NAME_5]. It then got physical. She was pushed to one side when her husband was attacked. He was hit on the head (once) with a wooden stick. After the attack, the husband was bleeding. The wife went with him in an ambulance to a hospital, some distance away in S town.

9 [55] The wife stayed with the husband in the hospital, while the children were with the husband’s parents. The husband was in hospital for nearly a week. His head was dressed in bandages each day and there were medical tests. The husband did not have any operations. There are no photographs of the husband at the hospital. They do not have medical records of his treatment in hospital as they did not expect to need them. [56] The husband and wife did not make a police complaint about the assault as they were in the wrong (they owed money), they were dealing with “party people” and they did not want any more trouble. The police did not visit the husband in hospital. [57] When the husband left hospital, the wife believes that they went directly to her parents’ home in X village. They did not feel safe. They were close to their home in Z town, and, in those few days, they were visited by several creditors. This affected her parents. [58] After a few days, the family moved to T city, where they rented a place owned by a friend’s brother. Creditors did not visit them in T city. Her husband received calls from creditors, but he blocked their numbers. The husband did not tell her much because she was very stressed. They found work to support themselves. The husband worked for [NAME_9] and she had a small job from home. While in T city, the husband did not tell her whether creditors were visiting their parents’ houses. [59] The wife recalls that her daughter told her that, when walking home from school, she was spoken to in very bad language by a creditor. The wife does not remember when or where this happened. [60] The husband owned a Datsun Go Plus car, which he returned to a lender. He also owned a motorcycle. The wife does not know what happened to the motorcycle. [61] In March 2023, the family left India for New Zealand. The wife and husband have been working here as cleaners. The husband has received some calls from creditors, who say that they have been owed their money for a long time, that the husband and wife are cheating them and that they need the money. The husband has protected her by not telling her the details. [62] In about January 2024, the wife recorded in a diary a summary of the debts and payments made from New Zealand to creditors’ bank accounts through

10 Google Pay. The [NAME_5] loan is not in the diary. This loan is recorded with the husband’s business transactions in a separate diary in India. They left that diary in India because their immigration agent said that they should not carry many books and financial records to New Zealand. [63] While the family have been in New Zealand, many creditors have visited her parents’ house, using foul language. The parents told her husband, not the wife. In April 2025, the wife’s father committed suicide. He is a self-respecting person, who never took a loan in his life. He got into a very bad mental state because the creditors were visiting his house. [64] After the father’s death, members of the wife’s family spoke to creditors and explained that the husband and wife want to pay everyone, but that it would take time. The wife thinks that the settlement is with small creditors, but her husband and brother have not told her the details. They speak about these things between themselves. Her bother did not tell her which creditors were involved, just that, “in general”, things were settled. There was no mention of [NAME_5]. [65] To the wife’s knowledge, she and her husband have not paid [NAME_5] since leaving India. They have not been in contact with him and, in any event, her husband tells her that [NAME_5] wants payment in full. [66] The wife believes that, if the family returns to India, anything could happen to them. They might be attacked by their creditors as revenge for unpaid debts. The children’s future should not be affected by the inability of the wife and husband to pay their debts. There is no hope of repaying the debts if living in India. The family cannot live safely anywhere there. They want to pay their creditors. They should be allowed to stay in New Zealand, where they can earn money to pay the debts. Evidence of [NAME_10], the Daughter [67] [NAME_10] (the daughter) gave a written statement (27 March 2026) and evidence at the hearing. [68] The daughter was born in India and is now 16 years old. [69] The daughter states that, in India, her father’s business failed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Her parents have unpaid debts. Creditors sometimes came to their house seeking payment. The daughter does remember how often, and she did not hear what they said.

11 [70] The daughter’s father was attacked and hospitalised. She was then 12 years old. The daughter and her parents were walking home from a church service when a couple of people approached them. She does not remember what was said or whether they were carrying weapons. These people attacked her father, and he was injured on his head and leg. The daughter was shocked by the attack. After the attack, she went home to her grandparents (her father’s parents), while her parents went to a hospital. Her father was in hospital for a week or so. When he was discharged from the hospital, she thinks that he returned to their home. [71] After the attack, the daughter was walking home from school when she saw some people, including the same people who had attacked her father. They said to her that this would be repeated, if her parents did not pay the money they owed. The daughter told her parents. She does not recall their reaction or what they said. The daughter then stopped going to school. [72] The family lived for a short time with her other grandparents (her mother’s parents), but the creditors found them there. The family moved to T city, where the daughter does not remember visits from creditors. However, she heard that creditors kept going to her grandparents’ houses. Her grandfather (her mother’s father) became depressed and, one day, he committed suicide. [73] The daughter is afraid that her family will be harmed if they return to India. She does not believe that the family could live safely anywhere in India or that she could continue her education there. in late 2024, the daughter had an operation at a hospital in New Zealand and has six-monthly checkups. She is concerned that she will not receive proper medical care, if she has to return to India. Other Evidence Received [74] The Tribunal and the appellants have been provided with their Refugee Status Unit (“RSU”) files, including copies of documents submitted in support of the appellants’ claim, including: (a) Confirmation of Claim forms (26 September and 26 October 2023) submitted to the RSU. (b) The RSU’s notes of interviews with the husband on 15 October 2024 and the wife and daughter on 16 October 2024. (c) A report (30 October 2024) on the interviews by the RSU.

12 (d) A reply (15 January 2025) by counsel for the appellants to the interview report, with attachments (including an undated statement by the husband). (e) Letters (undated, 10 October 2024) from a lawyer to the husband making demands for payment of arrears on a loan. (f) A decision (11 April 2025) by the RSU declining the appellants’ claims for refugee or protected person status. [75] On appeal, in addition to the witness statements referred to above, the appellants have provided further documents, including: (a) A New Zealand Police form acknowledging a report by the husband of theft of passports from a vehicle on 19 January 2024. (b) A letter (30 January 2025) from a doctor reporting on the husband’s health. (c) Medical notes (20 and 24 December 2024) and letters to the husband and wife (11 April and 24 November 2025) from a hospital in Auckland in respect of the daughter. (d) A certificate recording the death of the wife’s father on 22 April 2025. [76] Counsel also provides a bundle of country information. Submissions [77] Counsel submits, in writing (26 March 2026) and at the hearing, that the appellants should be recognised as refugees or protected persons because there is a real chance of serious harm to them in India from moneylenders. ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANTS’ CLAIM [78] Under section 198 of the Immigration Act 2009 (“the Act”), on an appeal concerning refugee or protection status under section 194(1)(c), the Tribunal must determine (in this order) whether to recognise the appellants as:

13 (a) Refugees under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“the Refugee Convention” or “the Convention”) (section 129); and (b) Protected persons under the 1984 Convention Against Torture (section 130); and (c) Protected persons under the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“the ICCPR”) (section 131). [79] There is a statutory obligation on the appellants, under section 226(1) of the Act, to establish their 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. [80] In determining whether the appellants are refugees or protected persons, 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: … making findings of fact, applying the relevant law and making a determination. [81] This requires an assessment of the evidence presented in support of the appellants’ case. As explained in AQ (Democratic Republic of Congo) [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 appellants’ 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 AQ (Democratic Republic of Congo) at [78]. Assessment of the Evidence [82] The Tribunal accepts that: the husband operated a tourism business in Kerala from about 2017 to 2023; when the COVID-19 pandemic started, the business had no income and closed; the husband and wife have debts to many creditors; the husband, wife and their families experienced contact from creditors

14 seeking payment of the debts; in April 2025, the wife’s father committed suicide under pressure from the creditors; and the husband and wife are paying creditors from New Zealand, with many still unpaid. [83] The Tribunal does not accept that the husband has a debt to a creditor named [NAME_5]. The evidence about the debt to [NAME_5] was not convincing. At the hearing, the husband and wife stated that he had borrowed 5 lakhs in total from [NAME_5], but he had clearly borrowed significantly more when the loans itemised by him were added up (a minimum of 5.5 lakhs). The husband and wife stated that he had made small payments of interest to [NAME_5], and the husband stated that, according to [NAME_5], he now owed about 8 lakhs. However, the evidence was vague, and the amount owed could not be calculated even in a general sense because there was no clear evidence of the amounts loaned, the amounts paid, and interest owed. The husband claimed that all that information was kept by [NAME_5]. However, this conflicted with the wife’s evidence that the husband had possession of a diary in India, recording transactions with [NAME_5]. There was no evidence that the husband and wife had attempted to find these records in India. Further, the wife (educated in accounting) had meticulous records in another diary of all other debts, that is, with the amount of each debt, each payment, a running balance of the debt and when a debt had been paid in full. It was not plausible that there was a separate diary for the debt to [NAME_5] when the wife had a separate diary recording every other debt. If [NAME_5] had, in fact, threatened, attacked and harmed the husband, it made no sense, as the husband stated at the hearing, that he and his wife prioritised payments to other creditors. If he had loaned money to the husband, [NAME_5] deserved payment like other creditors. Finally, the husband stated that [NAME_5] held title papers for the husband’s motor vehicle, motorcycle and scooter, as security for the loans. However, this was inconsistent with the husband’s evidence that he gave the car to a friend, the scooter to his wife’s younger brother, and, in particular, that he sold the motorcycle in 2019, without the title document held by [NAME_5]. [84] The Tribunal does not accept that [NAME_5] physically attacked and made threats of physical harm against the husband. In the context of the evidence stated above about the existence of the loan from [NAME_5], the appellants’ evidence about the attack had significant inconsistencies. There was conflicting evidence as to the number of people who confronted the husband. At the hearing, the husband said that [NAME_5] and four or five men confronted him, and he said that he did not notice whether they were armed. However, in his RSU interview, the husband stated that there were 10 to 15 men armed with iron bars and sticks. At the hearing, the wife stated

15 that she and her husband were without the children and that they were confronted by 10 to 15 people. However, the daughter stated that she was present and that they were confronted by two persons. At the hearing, the husband stated that, in the attack, his head was injured and that he was cut and bruised. However, he did not mention (as stated in his interview with the RSU) that his leg was fractured. He only confirmed this when asked directly whether he had suffered that specific injury in the attack. It is not credible that he would not remember this significant injury to his leg if, in fact, he had been attacked and injured in the way described to the RSU. The wife stated that the husband was struck once with a stick and injured on his head. It is not credible that she would not have noticed the injury to his leg, given that she went and stayed with him at the hospital. On the other hand, the daughter mentioned an injury to the husband’s head and leg. [85] The husband, wife and daughter all stated that the husband was treated for his injuries at a hospital. However, this is not accepted by the Tribunal. If the husband was treated there, it is likely that there would be medical records of his admission, treatment and discharge from the hospital. However, no records were provided. The husband stated that he could not obtain medical records because he soon after moved away from Z town and the wife stated that they did not anticipate that they would need these records. However, these were unconvincing explanations given that relatives continue to live near to the hospital and there is no evidence of any attempt to obtain the medical records in the three years since the family’s arrival in New Zealand. [86] The Tribunal does not accept the appellants’ evidence about the police. The husband stated, at the hearing, that the police attended him in hospital, but that he made no complaint about [NAME_5]’s attack. This was inconsistent with his RSU interview, where he stated that he did make a complaint to the police, but that it was not investigated properly. The wife’s evidence was also inconsistent: that the police did not attend the husband in hospital. [87] The Tribunal accepts that some of the husband’s and wife’s creditors spoke to the daughter about her parents’ debts while she was walking home from school, probably in late 2022. However, for the reasons stated above, it does not accept the daughter’s evidence that they were persons who had attacked the husband in October 2022. [88] The Tribunal accepts evidence of the husband and [NAME_6] that members of the wife’s family came to an arrangement with many of the creditors for the husband and wife to repay the debts gradually. However, given the assessment of the

16 evidence above, the Tribunal does not accept that [NAME_5] was a party to that meeting and arrangement. [89] Subject to those findings, the Tribunal accepts the balance of the evidence presented in support of the appellants’ case. THE REFUGEE CONVENTION [90] 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 the Refugee Convention. [91] Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention 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. [92] In determining what is meant by “well-founded” in Article 1A(2) of the Convention, the Tribunal adopts the approach in [NAME_11] 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]; HX (China) [2023] NZIPT 802189 at [55]–[60]. [93] “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]. [94] 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 husband being persecuted in the country of nationality? (b) If the answer is yes, is there a Convention reason for that persecution?

17 Objectively, on the Facts as Found, is There a Real Chance of the Appellants Being Persecuted in India? [95] It is necessary to record relevant country information to provide context to the appellants’ case. Relevant country information [96] In India, despite regulation of oppressive lending, for example, by the Usurious Loans Act 1918. However, unlicensed moneylenders continue to operate — see the Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and [NAME_12]: India (29 September 2023) (the [NAME_12] report): 3.171 Loan sharks operate in India and various media reports in recent years have highlighted the issue. Moneylenders operate outside of the formal credit system, especially in rural areas. Sources told [NAME_12] that moneylenders may lend against an expected harvest; if the harvest fails then the borrower may be unable to pay back the loan. Health care costs are also a common reason to borrow money. As in many countries with high outward migration, borrowing money to migrate, including to attempt an asylum claim, is also a possible cause. … 3.176 Loan sharking is illegal. The Usurious Loans Act 1918 bans ‘excessive’ interest rates, which are not defined. Courts may look at different features of a loan (the principal, other charges, periods at which interest is calculated and other factors) to determine if the rate is excessive. According to the [NAME_13] article and others, new fintech lending services are poorly regulated. Access to legal relief from courts has its own challenges, outlined in the section on judiciary. [97] Counsel has provided country information that the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated debt problems in India — see [NAME_14] “TN: [[COMPANY_15]] Study Reveals Dire Debt Crisis Faced by Women” News Click (29 December 2021). Further, some debtors who have committed suicide because of their debt problems — see “19% of Suicides due to Money Woes” The Times of India (21 April 2025); and “Four Loan Sharks held for Driving Family to Suicide Rs 57L Debt in Hyderabad” The New Indian Express (3 March 2026). [98] Debtors who do not repay loans may suffer harassment from moneylenders, including threats of violence and sometimes actual violence, and may experience social shame — see the [NAME_12] report: 3.175 Sources consulted by [NAME_12] agreed that violence against debtors who do not repay money is possible, but they emphasised that suicide that results from sustained harassment from lenders is more common than is direct violence. Such suicides in rural areas often occur through hanging or drinking pesticides. Debt

18 may then be passed on to family members who subsequently make an asylum attempt. … 3.177 The experience for those who are unable to service debts to loan sharks, and their family members, varies. Violence cannot be ruled out but is unlikely. Harassment, which can include threats of violence, is more likely. People borrowing money through informal moneylenders may also face societal discrimination, due to familial shame, should they default. [NAME_12] assesses that debtors face a low risk of societal violence. [NAME_12] is not aware of a pattern of societal or official discrimination against debtors. Application to the facts [99] As stated above, the Tribunal accepts that: the husband operated a tourism business in Kerala from about 2017; when the COVID-19 pandemic started, the business had no income and closed; the husband and wife have debts to many creditors; the husband, wife and their families have been harassed by creditors seeking payment of the debts; in April 2025, the wife’s father committed suicide under pressure from the creditors; and, from New Zealand, the husband and wife continue to pay their creditors, with many still unpaid. [100] Counsel submits that, if the appellants return to India, they will be at risk of serious harm from moneylenders. [101] Having heard and reviewed the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the husband and wife owe money to many creditors and that, if they return to Z town, they will face further demands for payment. There is country information that some moneylenders in India have put debtors under intense pressure, in some cases including physical harm, and that some debtors and their family members have become so desperate that they have killed themselves. In the appellants’ case, the wife’s father’s cause of death is not recorded on the death certificate provided, but the Tribunal accepts the evidence that he committed suicide under pressure from debtors. However, the husband and wife have not established that their creditors have threatened or inflicted physical harm against them in the past. Rather, the evidence before the Tribunal is that the creditors have pressured, but not harmed them or threatened harm, and that most of them were willing to enter into a compromise. Having not inflicted serious harm on the appellants in the past, it seems unlikely that they will do so in the future. The Tribunal therefore finds that, if the appellants return to India, there is no real chance that they will be seriously physically harmed by their creditors.

19 [102] Under the Refugee Convention, “being persecuted” is not limited to “physical” acts or harm, but may include psychological or mental harm — see, for example, Refugee Appeal No 2039/93; Re MN (12 February 1996); Refugee Appeal No 71404/99 (29 October 1999) at [73] to [75]; Refugee Appeal No 75692 (3 March 2006) at [86]; DS (Iran) at [81](a); and HV (Sri Lanka) [2023] NZIPT 802088. However, in this case, the wife’s family members have negotiated with creditors for the husband and wife to repay the debts over time. The husband gave evidence that they may suffer shame and embarrassment from not paying their debts when due. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence that the creditors’ demands to repay the debts would amount to serious psychological harm for them. Conclusion on risk of being persecuted [103] For these reasons, objectively, on the facts as found, there is not a real chance of the appellants suffering serious harm arising from breaches of human rights. The appellants do not have a well-founded fear of being persecuted. Conclusion on Claim to Refugee Status [104] For the foregoing reasons, the appellants are not recognised as refugees. THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE [105] Section 130(1) of the Act provides that: A person must be recognised as a protected person in New Zealand under the Convention Against Torture 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 Convention Against Torture [106] Section 130(5) of the Act provides that torture has the same meaning as in the Convention Against Torture, 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.

20 [107] The appellants rely on the same evidence for this part of their appeal as they do for their claims to refugee status. The same findings of credibility and fact apply.

For the reasons given above, the appellants are 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 appellants are not recognised as a protected person in New Zealand under the Convention Against Torture. Conclusion on Claim under Convention Against Torture [108] For the above reasons, the appellants are not protected persons under section 130 of the Act. THE ICCPR [109] 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. ... (6) In this section, cruel treatment means cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. Assessment of the Claim under the ICCPR [110] The appellants rely on the same evidence for this part of the appeal as for the claims to refugee status. The same findings of credibility and fact apply. [111] The Tribunal reminds itself that the threshold for the gravity of the harm required under the ICCPR is not less than the threshold required to establish “being persecuted” in the context of the Refugee Convention (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. [112] For the reasons given above, the appellants are not in danger of being arbitrarily deprived of life or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

21 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

S Benson Member punishment.

Accordingly, the appellants are not recognised as protected persons in New Zealand under the ICCPR. Conclusion on Claim under ICCPR [113] For the above reasons already given, the appellants are not protected persons within the meaning of section 131(1) of the Act.

CONCLUSION [114] For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal finds that the appellants: [redacted] are not refugees within the meaning of the Refugee Convention and, therefore, are not refugees under section 129 of the Act; (b) are not protected persons within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the Convention Against Torture and, therefore, are not protected persons under section 130 of the Act; (c) are not protected persons within the meaning of the relevant elements of Articles 6 and 7 of the ICCPR and, therefore, are not protected persons under section 131 of the Act. [115] The appeals are dismissed. Order as to Depersonalised and Abridged Research Copy [116] 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 appellants or others. [117] 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 appellants from the research copy of this decision. “S Benson” S Benson Member