New Delhi: Stating that Christians are not persecuted in India, despite instances of religious and political violence, a New Zealand tribunal last month rejected an asylum claim by an Indian national who converted to Christianity after arriving there and argued he would face persecution if he were to return, citing “religiously motivated violence”.
In his asylum application, the man from Uttrakhand had alleged that in 2020 his uncle, associated with the BJP, along with a group of men from the Bajrang Dal, caught him attending church with friends, and beat him up.
The man had travelled to New Zealand in October 2023 on a tourist visa and then applied for asylum.
He alleged that on the night of 8 March 2025, his family home in India was attacked by six to eight people, including his uncle and individuals associated with the Bajrang Dal and Gau Raksha Dal, who threatened his family, broke a window, vandalised the house with hockey sticks, and chanted slogans.
He told the Refugee Status Unit that he could not return to India after converting to Christianity, as violence against “perceived BJP dissidents and religious minorities is widespread in India”. While the tribunal acknowledged that there have been instances of religious and political violence in India, it said such general conditions do not automatically establish an individual’s claim of a “well-founded fear of persecution”.
In its decision, a copy of which is with ThePrint, the tribunal, however, said asylum can be granted only when there is evidence indicating a “real chance of serious harm arising from breaches of internationally recognised human rights,” adding that a single incident of harm does not “meet the threshold for establishing persecution”.
The tribunal noted that reports by the US Department of State and Freedom House (Freedom in the World 2024 – India) refer to religious tensions in India, particularly affecting Muslims under the current government.
However, they do not mention any specific difficulties faced by Christians, except for a reference to the conflict in Manipur between the Hindu Meitei and the largely Christian Kuki communities that began in May 2023, which is not relevant to the applicant’s case.
“This conflict is far from Uttarakhand (about 2,500 km away) and is not relevant to the appellant’s case,” the tribunal noted. Another factor that went against the applicant was that he never approached the police or the courts to complain about the alleged beatings.
As a result, it could not be assumed that the State failed to protect him, the tribunal noted.
The tribunal also noted that it was not established that the Indian State was unable or unwilling to protect him, as it was never given the opportunity to do so, something considered a prerequisite for an asylum claim. “Clear and convincing evidence of a State’s inability to provide protection must be shown. In the absence of such evidence, a claim should fail, as States are presumed capable of protecting their citizens. The security of nationals is, after all, the essence of sovereignty,” it said.
The tribunal further noted, “Here, the appellant has provided no evidence of any effort or attempt to seek state protection in India.”
Also Read: Is New Zealand going the Canada way? Over 500% rise in asylum claims by Indians over past 2 years
‘Could relocate within India’
Rejecting the asylum claim, the tribunal said choosing a place of asylum is not a matter of a claimant’s convenience or of the attractiveness of the place of relocation.
It said the applicant could move to any place within India, if he feels threatened. “It appears to the tribunal that the appellant could access, and reside safely in any one of the cities in the Punjab, such as Amritsar, Ludhiana or Jalandhar, or in Delhi or Mumbai. There is no possibility of the uncle or the other men even knowing that the appellant had returned to India, let alone in which city he was living, or where in that city,” it said.
In response, the applicant argued that internal relocation would not reduce the risk, citing the BJP’s nationwide influence and extensive support network. He stated that his uncles are aligned with the BJP and the Bajrang Dal, both of which have significant reach.
Rejecting this apprehension, the tribunal said no evidence had been provided to substantiate the claim. It also noted that the appellant is “a minor figure of no national or even state significance”.
“The fact that the appellant’s uncles are aligned with the BJP and the Bajrang Dal, both prominent organisations with widespread influence, does not establish that the appellant’s uncles, or their associates, have access to these networks or would be able to use them to locate the appellant, or even how such networks operate,” the tribunal noted.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: Pentecostal Christians of Ghaziabad are growing. Unmarked rented spaces the new churches