A Sri Lankan man who entered into a bigamous marriage and later sought refugee status in New Zealand has had his application rejected by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. The man, identified as J.C., claimed that he was coerced into marrying a second woman under duress from a powerful Sri Lankan politician. However, the tribunal found inconsistencies in his account and ruled that his second wife’s version of events was more credible.
J.C., who had already been married since 2010 and had two children in Sri Lanka, alleged that his troubles began in mid-2015. He claimed that his home in Sri Lanka had political posters affixed to its fence without his consent, which prompted him to remove them. He claimed that this act led to threats from supporters of a prominent politician, who confronted him with a knife.
According to J.C., his attempt to report the incident to the police resulted in a visit from the politician himself, accompanied by a convoy of 10 to 15 vehicles. During this confrontation, J.C. alleged that the politician accused him of supporting a rival party and held a pistol to his head before forcing the barrel into his mouth. The politician purportedly warned him to refrain from any political involvement.
After the politician’s electoral victory later that year, J.C. claimed he received a summons to meet him again. He alleged that during this meeting, the politician instructed him to marry a woman whose father was distressed over her alleged same-sex relationship. J.C. stated that he was told to accompany the woman to New Zealand to facilitate her relocation, with the assurance that his first wife and children would be financially supported in Sri Lanka. Feeling threatened, he reportedly agreed to the arrangement.
However, the second marriage deteriorated by 2018 when the woman decided to return to Sri Lanka to reconnect with her former female partner. J.C. claimed that this left him fearing retribution from the politician for failing to prevent the woman from rekindling her previous relationship. Subsequently, he applied for refugee status in New Zealand, citing fears of persecution upon his return to Sri Lanka.
J.C.’s first wife and mother, who provided testimony from Sri Lanka, supported his claims. They claimed that the politician’s associates subjected them to ongoing harassment after the second wife’s return to Sri Lanka.
Conversely, J.C.’s second wife, identified as C.C., refuted his allegations. She denied being a lesbian and asserted that she had a positive relationship with her father. She claimed to have met J.C. at a wedding in 2014 and married him in late 2015. However, she alleged that the marriage was fraught with emotional and physical abuse. She further stated that she was unaware of J.C.’s existing marriage at the time and later discovered that he had been sending money to another woman in Sri Lanka using her laptop.
C.C. also contested J.C.’s claim that his first marriage had taken place in 2010. She stated that she had obtained official Sri Lankan records indicating that J.C.’s marriage to his first wife had occurred in 2015—the same year he married her. This evidence led her to initiate legal proceedings to nullify their bigamous marriage.
After evaluating the conflicting testimonies, adjudicator Bruce Burson determined that C.C.’s account was the most credible. He noted discrepancies in J.C.’s statements, as well as inconsistencies in the testimonies provided by his first wife and mother. Additionally, doubts were raised regarding the authenticity of J.C.’s marriage certificate, which he claimed documented his first marriage in 2010.
Based on the findings, the tribunal concluded that J.C. had deliberately misled C.C. into a fraudulent marriage to obtain a visa for New Zealand. The ruling indicated that his ultimate objective was to facilitate the migration of his first wife and children. Consequently, his application for refugee status was denied, as the tribunal did not find sufficient grounds to support his claims of persecution.
This case highlights the complexities involved in asylum claims and the rigorous scrutiny applied by immigration authorities in assessing the credibility of applicants. The tribunal’s decision underscores the importance of verifiable evidence in establishing claims of coercion and political persecution.
