Indian man ‘attacked with sickle’ in land feud denied refugee status in New Zealand

A man who claimed he was slashed in the head with a sickle after a dispute over irrigation on family land in India has failed to win refugee status in New Zealand. Photo / 123rf

Claims of being hanged from a tree and then slashed in the head with a sickle in a dispute over irrigation on family land have proved no defence in an Indian man’s fight for refugee status in New Zealand.

The man told immigration officials he feared being persecuted in India and was at risk of harm from a “mentally unstable man” from his village if forced to return.

He also feared being killed or seriously harmed in any firearms skirmish between India and Pakistan, as his home was near the border.

The man’s family had been in dispute with a neighbouring family for the past 20 years, during which time his mother had died and he had been attacked multiple times.

However, his argument did not hold sway with the NZ Immigration and Protection Tribunal, which last month declined his appeal against an earlier decision declining his application for refugee status or protected person status.

After detailed consideration, the tribunal was satisfied that the risk to the appellant of serious harm arising from breaches of human rights in India was no more than “speculative and remote”.

Irrigation dispute turned violent

The 33-year-old, whose name was redacted from the decision, was from a village in northern India.

He arrived in New Zealand in recent years, though neither his lawyer nor Government officials would say on what grounds he arrived.

According to information presented to the tribunal, the irrigation dispute between neighbouring families began in 2006.

He claimed members of the neighbouring family went to his family farm and beat his father and other family members to the point at which they needed hospital treatment.

NZ immigration authorities have found an Indian man who feared persecution if forced to return did not meet the legal threshold of being deemed a refugee. Photo / 123rf

The neighbours then lodged legal action against his family, and the conflict escalated, tribunal member Bruce Burson said.

The man claimed he and his mother were attacked inside their home, triggering a decline in her mental health and, ultimately, her death from heart failure.

He believed she died because of stress caused by the conflict.

One day, as he was walking home, the man claimed he was stopped on the road by the neighbour, and suspended from a tree branch with a rope tied around his neck.

He was saved by a passerby.

The man claimed the sickle attack happened several years later, when he was slashed in the head.

Tribunal questions breach of rights

A resident in the man’s village confirmed seeing the attack and was also aware of the hanging incident, but two other witnesses had since died, the tribunal was told.

The neighbour was committed to a mental health facility, from which he later escaped, the man claimed.

The tribunal said that, based on the information it had, it accepted that the man had in the past suffered serious harm, including that the neighbour had tried to hang him, and later attacked him with a sickle.

However, the action of a private individual, and not a state agent, did not of itself evidence breach of a right, which was “particularly relevant” to the appeal, Burson said.

The man claimed that, since being in New Zealand, the neighbour had continued to “tease and harm” his father, including hitting him with a car while he was riding his bike, which resulted in hospital care.

It was also claimed that, recently, the neighbour had “forcefully entered” the man’s family home with weapons, and threatened that he would kill him if found.

It was on this basis that he felt New Zealand should protect him.

“For reasons which are not clear, there seems to have been something of an upswing in incidents since the appellant has come to New Zealand,” Burson said.

No evidence of police involvement

He said there was no evidence that any protection had been sought from the police, and the only court proceedings on file related to a judgment given against the appellant’s father.

They related to a complaint brought against him and others by the neighbour for “illegally diverting water” and assaulting him with a spade.

The tribunal considered the appeal was manifestly unfounded or “clearly abusive”, and that the appellant had had “multiple occasions” on which to advance and explain his claim.

It also found his fears of cross-border skirmishes were linked to a single incident in 2023, when there was a crossfire encounter between the Indian army and militants near his home.

“None of this is to deny that the conflict may impact upon the appellant’s life and sense of security,” Burson said.

Fear of persecution ‘not established’

Burson said that, in this instance, the tribunal identified the basic principles of refugee and protection law that applied in New Zealand.

To establish a real chance of being persecuted, it was the responsibility of the claimant to point to evidence indicating a real chance of serious harm arising from breaches of internationally recognised human rights.

The tribunal was satisfied that the appellant could live elsewhere in India, other than around his village, and the risk of serious harm arising from breaches of human rights in India was no more than speculative and remote.

“For this reason, he does not have a well-founded fear of being persecuted in India,” Burson said, finding that the man was not entitled to be recognised by law as a refugee.

Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.