An Indian man who converted from Hinduism to Christianity has failed in his bid to gain asylum in Australia, with a tribunal ruling that he faces no real risk of harm if he returns home.The decision was issued after Australia’s Immigration and Protection Tribunal rejected the claim last month. It said the applicant’s fear of harassment was “manifestly unfounded”. The tribunal stated that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold required for refugee protection.“The evidence does not establish a risk of harm that is more than mere speculation or a remote or random possibility,” the tribunal said, Australia Today reported. The applicant is a 23-year-old man from Uttarakhand and had entered Australia on a visitor visa in October 2023. He soon began attending church and formally converted to Christianity in June 2024, around the same time he applied for asylum.In his claim he alleged that his family members in India were not happy with his religious conversion. He spoke of a physical assault by an uncle and an attack on his family home in March 2025.However, the tribunal identified inconsistencies and shortcomings in his account. It said the man had not contacted Indian authorities for protection or assistance.“He did not make any complaint to the police… nor did he seek the assistance of the courts,” the tribunal said. He said there was no evidence that he had attempted to gain state protection.The Tribunal acknowledged that the applicant may have experienced violence, but ruled that these incidents did not amount to persecution under refugee law. There was also no indication that the risk of harm would increase upon their return to India.The decision further stated that the individual can move safely within the country. Major cities like Delhi and Mumbai were cited as viable options where they would not face any threat.“There is no possibility for those involved to know whether the Appellant has returned… or where he is staying in that city,” the tribunal said.The Tribunal ultimately ruled that the applicant did not qualify for refugee or protected person status under international conventions, including the Refugee Convention and the Convention against Torture. “The appellant is not a refugee… the appeal is dismissed,” the ruling said.