New Zealand Tribunal Rejects All 40 Khalistan-Linked Refugee Claims Decided In 2025-26

September 1, 2026

New Delhi: New Zealand’s Immigration and Protection Tribunal has rejected all 40 published asylum cases linked to Khalistan that it decided during 2025 and 2026, marking a significant shift from the two claims it accepted in 2024.

A review of publicly available tribunal decisions found that the tribunal decided 15 such cases in 2025 and another 25 so far in 2026. None of the applicants in these cases were granted refugee recognition.

Tribunal’s Approach Differs From 2024 Decisions

The latest figures, highlighted in a recent report by Awaaz, come after two Indian nationals were recognised as refugees by the tribunal in 2024.

In those cases, the tribunal accepted that the applicants’ highly visible support for the Khalistan movement could expose them to a risk of persecution if they were returned to India.

Both applicants had prominent political profiles. Their activities included regular pro-Khalistan posts on social media, associations with separatist organisations and, in one case, a prominent tattoo linked to Khalistan.

The 2024 rulings were later cited by lawyers representing other asylum seekers. According to Australia Today, at least nine subsequent cases referred to one or both of those decisions, although all those applications were ultimately rejected.

Tribunal Finds Limited Political Activity Insufficient

In several recent cases, the tribunal has distinguished between highly visible political activism and relatively limited participation in Khalistan-related events.

The tribunal has repeatedly observed that applicants did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that Indian authorities were aware of their political activities or regarded them as a threat.

One such case involved an applicant who participated in a non-binding Khalistan referendum in Auckland and attended a demonstration outside the Indian High Commission in Wellington.

However, the tribunal characterised these activities as “low level” and found no evidence that they had come to the attention of Indian authorities.