Manifestly Unfounded Refugee and Protection claims: no oral hearing at the Tribunal
- Although relatively rare in previous years, the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (the IPT) is now regularly determining that manifestly unfounded cases should not proceed to an oral hearing. It is understood that this is in response to a raft of cases, mainly from the sub-continent of India, that are working their way through the Refugee Status Unit and then on appeal to the IPT. In addition to these cases being “manifestly unfounded” they could also be described as abusive. Counsel should not be granted Legal Aid to run such cases in our view.
- DA(India) [2026] NZIPT 802959: The chair, the honourable Judge Treadwell determined that a case involving a Hindu with an interest in Christianity was manifestly unfounded and would not be granted an oral hearing. The learned judge determined that the case was neither well founded nor was persecution likely, and that there was an “internal protection alternative (IPA)”.
- Similarly the Tribunal found in ET(India) [2026] NZIPT 803172 that a fear of a mentally ill neighbour, and what might occur, was a manifestly unfounded appeal. In the case delivered on 10 April 2026 (B L Burson) the case was found not to be well founded and that an internal protection alternative was clearly available.
- Similarly a case from Nepal: BL(Nepal) [2026] NZIPT 803034. The Tribunal held that a case involving threats from a businessman to kill or harm the appellant was not well founded and there was an internal protection alternative. The case also involved no Refugee Convention ground and did not come within either the Torture Convention of the ICCPR etc.
Conclusion
- Clearly, meritless cases are a burden on the system. As, on the balance of probabilities, throughout India (and other countries in the sub-continent) it will be viable to relocate to another part of the country, there will not normally be a finding that there is no IPA. The question of whether or not an IPA is available will depend on the facts but by and large any fear of “localised” harm in India (and other countries) can be resolved by relocating within the country. Accordingly an IPA will normally be available, in India where the fear is localised.
- The requirement that an IPA is not available falls on the appellant to establish on the balance of probabilities: Refugee & Protection Officer v BA (Nigeria) [2022] NZHC 706, Woolford J.
David Ryken
Ryken & Associates