1413433 (Refugee)

[2015] AATA 3973

1413433 (Refugee) [2015] AATA 3973 (24 December 2015)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1413433

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Bangladesh

MEMBER:Paul Millar

DATE:24 December 2015

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 24 December 2015 at 7:01pm

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection Visa – Bangladesh – Religion – Christian convert – Islam – Fear of harm from family and former associates – Witness credibility – Inconsistent evidence – Genuine conversion

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65, 91R, 499

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).  The applicant, who the Tribunal finds to be a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for the visa [in] November 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] July 2014.[1] The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 23 December 2015 to give evidence and present arguments.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Bengali and English languages.  The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.  The representative attended the hearing.

   [1] The Tribunal's finding on citizenship is based on copies of pages from the applicant’s Bangladesh passport which appear on the department file at folios 25-29.

   RELEVANT LAW

2. The criteria for a Protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a Protection visa of the same class.

3. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a Protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

4. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

   owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

5. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a Protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

6. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration (‘the department’) – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (‘DFAT’) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.[2]

   [2] In this respect, the Tribunal has taken account of DFAT Bangladesh Country Information Report October 2014 but it is not material to the grounds on which this review has been determined.

   FINDINGS

7. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.  According to his evidence to the department and the Tribunal, the applicant claimed protection on the ground that he converted from Islam to Christianity when he lived in Bangladesh and, for doing so, various people there wish to harm him.[3]  At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant displayed an insincere and artificial demeanour as a witness.  His evidence was often oblique and confused requiring the Tribunal to have to frequently clarify what his evidence actually was.  He did not convey the impression of a person who had truly undergone a significant event in his life, namely, conversion to another religion, and who, as a result, suffered having to abandon his business, the loss of his marriage, rejection from family and society and threats to his life.  Apart from his unimpressive demeanour, the Tribunal holds the following concerns about the applicant’s credibility.

   Credibility concerns

   Inconsistent evidence about the applicant attending a Christian church in Dhaka

   [3] The applicant's evidence to the department and the Tribunal comprised the contents of his Protection visa application forms; his written statement lodged with the application (at folios 77-84 of the department file); his evidence at his interview with the delegate for which there is an audio recording on the Tribunal file and to which the Tribunal has listened and his evidence at the Tribunal hearing.  The Tribunal had access to the department file for the application the applicant made for a [temporary] visa to enter Australia.  There is no information in this file which is material to the grounds on which the Tribunal has determined this review.

8. To the Tribunal, the applicant said that when he was at high school in his native area in Munhsiganj, about one and a half hours from Dhaka, he met X, a Christian from a nearby village.  They became friends and attended high school and college together until 2003.  At that point, the applicant came to Dhaka to work and in May 2006 became a partner in a business in that city with AA a man he met through his father.  He and AA became close and in December 2008 the applicant married his sister.  Their child was born in [birth date].  Prior to the applicant’s marriage, because his business was doing very well, the applicant requested (and his partners agreed) that his Christian friend X take up a position as [an occupation].  This happened in 2008 and X came to Dhaka to live and work. 

9. From the time they first met at high school, X talked to the applicant about religion and his Christian faith.  He told the applicant that he attended a church in Dhaka.  The applicant said that these discussions and X’s church attendance continued from that time and after X joined the applicant’s business in Dhaka in 2008.  In mid-2012, for the first time, the applicant went to this church with X.  When asked how things were at that time in his business and his relationships with AA and his wife, the applicant said that everything was very good.  He said that after this first visit he went with X to the church approximately once every fortnight.

10. The applicant said that after he began attending church, he told his wife that he was going there with X and that he liked it.  After the first two or three occasions he went there, his wife confronted him about this asking him why he was going and telling him that AA was not pleased about that.  In this respect, the applicant described AA as a ‘pure Islamic religious believer’ who would not have liked the applicant getting involved in Christianity.  The applicant said that his wife told AA that he had been going to church though he believed AA had been watching him as AA would ask why he was ‘going so much’ with X.

11. The applicant felt that he was being pressured to stop what he was doing with X and going to church and this put him in a bad mood.  For that reason, in August 2012, he travelled to [Country 1] for a few days.  Prior to that time his wife had also told his parents that he was going to church and after he returned from [Country 1], for the first time, they confronted and scolded him about that because his father also was a fervent believer in Islam like AA.  He said that, at that time, his father spoke to him in the native village in a raised voice and, by that means, cousins (and neighbours) nearby heard what was being said and also learned about what the applicant had been doing. 

12. In contrast to this evidence, in his written statement lodged with his Protection visa application, the applicant referred to his friendship with X, the appointment of X to a position in his company and how they maintained their relationship even after X took up that position.  In this respect he said that X was ‘inviting [him] variously in different Christian functions and to his community member’s places in Dhaka where [he] was often listening and learning various Christian religion matters.’  He said that ‘during [a religious celebration] every year’ X was inviting him to [celebrate] by taking him to the church, introducing him to the priest and other fellow Christians who told him about Christianity and which made a difference to the applicant’s religious thinking, as to which religion (Christianity or Islam) was better to follow. 

13. In his written statement, the applicant then said that he did not however realise that AA was following his movements and his association with X.  He said that AA was unhappy about that.  The applicant said, in this respect, that ‘in the middle of 2011’ his wife for the first time asked why he had such a close association with X and told him that AA disapproved of that.  Nevertheless, according to his statement, although his wife would not listen to his explanations that there was nothing wrong with being friendly with a Christian or with Christianity, the applicant continued to ‘often’ attend church with X, being impressed with Christianity and wondering if he should convert.  He then referred to his relationship with AA ‘slowly’ getting worse, his wife changing her thoughts about him, disputes starting within the family about this and the applicant then going to [Country 1] in August 2012 because he was unstable and frustrated with that situation.

14. The Tribunal understood the applicant’s evidence in his written statement to be that over an extended period of time once his friend X took up a position in his business from 2008 the applicant began attending church with him and he was confronted by his wife about this in the middle of 2011 but continued to attend church for another year after that until August 2012 when he travelled to [Country 1] because of the rejection of what he was doing by his wife, family and AA.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that this was inconsistent with his evidence at the hearing that in fact he did not begin to attend church until the middle of 2012, approximately four years after X joined his company and that it was within a matter of only weeks that his wife confronted him about that expressing AA’s displeasure at what he was doing and the applicant then, soon after, going to [Country 1] in August 2012 because of that pressure. 

15. In response to this discrepancy, the applicant just said that he could not remember what he said in his written statement but the account he gave the Tribunal was correct.  That is not an adequate explanation for what is a striking inconsistency in the applicant’s evidence about a very fundamental and important aspect of his protection claims, namely, when the applicant began attending church in Bangladesh and over what period he did this before relations soured with his wife and AA causing him to go to [Country 1] in August 2012.

16. As stated above, in his written statement, the applicant said that X was ‘inviting [him] variously in different Christian functions and to his community member’s places in Dhaka where [he] was often listening and learning various Christian religion matters.’  In his statement, the applicant then referred to X discussing the difference between Christianity and Islam.  He then said that ‘although [he] was often arguing that Muslim religion was better than Christianity’ X would try to give examples of how Christianity was better there being no ‘jihad involvement etc’.  In contrast to this evidence, when asked by the Tribunal whether, in his discussions with X about religion, he ever argued that Islam was better than Christianity, the applicant said that he never did that.  He said that he only talked about Christianity being better than Islam.

17. The Tribunal then asked the applicant to explain his evidence in his statement that he often argued that Islam was better than Christianity.  In response, the applicant said he did discuss with X which religion was better and he talked with X ‘that Christianity is better’.  He did not account for this discrepancy.  The Tribunal asked the applicant whether, apart from going to the church in Dhaka and going to X’s home, he ever went to the homes of other Christians.  In response, the applicant said that once he went to the home of a Christian friend of X in Dhaka; that was all.  The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain why, in his written statement, he conveyed the impression that he not only went to church with X but went to the homes of different members of that community where he was ‘often’ learning about Christianity.

18. In response, the applicant said that he linked up with other Christians in the Church; he did not go to their home places and he met the father of the church.  The applicant did not explain the evidence in his written statement which conveyed the impression that he ‘often’ learned about Christianity by going to the homes of other Christians in Dhaka (not just the home of X and beyond one solitary visit to another Christian’s home as he had told the Tribunal). 

    Inconsistent evidence about attacks and threats

19. At an early stage of his evidence, when the Tribunal asked the applicant how his family felt about him attending church, he said that they beat him.  He then said that in fact they did not beat him but placed him under mental pressure.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was ever physically attacked in Bangladesh for attending church.  In response, the applicant said that he only received mental pressure; no one attacked or beat him but people were trying to kill him.  The Tribunal asked the applicant to confirm that when he lived in Bangladesh he was never physically attacked because of his interest in Christianity.  In response, the applicant said that, in fact, he was physically attacked in [his village] [in] October 2013.  He said that because the situation in Dhaka was so dangerous, AA having said he would kill him a few days earlier, he had gone back to his native village and within a few hours of his arrival, while walking through [a location] some neighbours and relatives attacked him.

20. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he needed medical treatment following this attack.  He said that they struck him once or twice but he was able to run away from them and so he did not need any medical attention.  He then said that this was the only occasion on which he was physically attacked.  He recalled on one occasion his father came towards him to beat him because he was going to church but his mother stopped him from doing that.  The applicant then said that [in] October 2013 he was in his office at his business in Dhaka when AA came and said that the applicant had to be killed for leaving Islam and becoming a Christian.  AA said that this was because the applicant had destroyed the family of AA’s sister and that she did not want the applicant.  Another reason AA wanted the applicant killed was because everybody was talking about what had happened.

21. The Tribunal asked the applicant why, if AA spoke to the applicant while in his office at the business, he did not just kill him there and then.  The applicant did not give a direct response to this question.  He said that AA could not find him after the applicant was baptised.  He then said that he was just in the office and AA threatened to kill him.  Again the Tribunal asked the applicant why AA did not just kill him on this occasion in his office [in] October 2013.  In response, the applicant said that the other partners and employees were present.  The applicant thought that AA would not actually be there on that occasion but when he approached and was yelling the applicant fled.

22. In his written statement lodged with his Protection visa application, the applicant mentioned AA being angry with him around the time he went to [Country 1] in August 2012, but, the first mention the applicant makes about being physically attacked or in some way threatened was not until after he was baptised [in] September 2013.  In that respect, the applicant said that since his baptism on that date he ‘was assaulted few times while [he] was in the streets or towards [his] way to work’.  He said that the perpetrators were either instigated by members of his family, members of his wife’s family or by X because there was no way people on the street could identify him as someone who had converted to Christianity to ‘insult and assault’ him.   He then said that although he was assaulted a few times as he had claimed, he went back to his native village to ‘see how [his] family members were reacted in the event of [his] conversion to Christianity’.  According to his statement, he found out that none of his family would talk to him and ‘within a few hours of [his] stay in [his] family home, [their] neighbours and relatives gathered together to assault [him] or to kill [him]’ for becoming a Christian causing the applicant to panic and escape to Dhaka (before leaving Bangladesh). 

23. The Tribunal put to the applicant that he made no mention whatsoever in his written statement of his claim to the Tribunal that [in] October 2013 AA came to his office at his business and said that he had to be killed.  In response, the applicant said that he did not say in the statement that AA threatened him over the telephone.  The Tribunal reminded the applicant that he told the Tribunal that AA threatened him in his office at his business.  In response, the applicant tried to retract that evidence and said that, on the day in question, he was in his office when AA saw him and approached.  At that point the applicant just left.  The Tribunal reminded the applicant that he had said that in his office AA told him he had to be killed.  In response, the applicant said that while AA was working he said that he would kill him and when the applicant heard about that he left his office.

24. The Tribunal found that evidence to be confused and to clarify what he was saying the Tribunal asked the applicant to confirm his initial evidence that when he was at his office [in] October 2013 AA came to him and said that he had to be killed.  In response, the applicant was again vague saying that AA was entering the office, he talked like that and the applicant just left.  The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain his subsequent evidence that this threat was made over the telephone.  In response, the applicant said that when he got out of the office, after a while, AA telephoned him and said that he would kill him.  He said that he did not actually hear him properly when he was at the office.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that there was no mention in his written statement of the very significant claim that AA said the applicant had to be killed for changing his religion.  In response, the applicant said it just got missed.  Overall, the applicant’s inconsistent evidence about this claimed threat from AA displayed his tendency to give indirect and confused responses to the Tribunal’s questions.  It is not credible for him to claim that this event occurred but it just ‘got missed’ from what is a very lengthy and detailed statement.

1. As stated above, in his written statement the applicant said that not long after his baptism [in] September 2013 he returned to his native village to see how his family would react to his ‘conversion’ (or baptism).  In contrast, to the Tribunal, he said that after returning to Bangladesh from a brief trip to [Country 2] in mid-July, he was too afraid to return to his village.  This was because his father was angry with him, as were other neighbours who knew what he had done and also AA was looking for him there (and in Dhaka).  It was only [in] October 2013 that he took the risk of returning to see his mother.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that this was inconsistent with his account in his written statement that he returned to his native village before then and that was to see how his family would react to his change of religion.

2. In response, the applicant said that when he converted to Christianity the problem occurred so he could not go back to his village.  He said that after his baptism he did return to the village to see his mother, everyone knew about his baptism and so that was why when he was in the [area] they came to beat him.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that he still had not explained the inconsistency in his accounts about returning to his village in September 2013 to see how his family would view his baptism or conversion, as he claimed in his written statement, and his evidence to the Tribunal that he was too afraid to return to his village until, [in] October 2013, he went there to see his mother.  In response, the applicant just repeated the account he gave the Tribunal that he wanted to see his mother but because everyone in that area knew what he had done they gathered to attack him.  He did not account for this discrepancy.

3. The Tribunal put to the applicant that according to his written statement, as stated above, after he was baptised [in] September 2013 he was assaulted a few times in Dhaka.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that this was inconsistent with his evidence at the hearing that the only occasion on which he was assaulted was [in] October 2013 in [his] native area (an attack not even mentioned in his written statement).  The applicant did not account for this discrepancy and just said that he was assaulted only once as he told the Tribunal.  He said that AA threatened him in his office and his father once approached him to beat him but did not.  He said that, otherwise, the written statement was wrong. 

4. At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant produced a newspaper from Bangladesh containing a report dated [in] October 2013 referring to the applicant accepting Christianity, this being rejected by the Moslem community of his village and how that community ‘taking no other option gave an ultimatum to him to leave the country within one week’.  According to the article, if the order was violated the applicant would be slaughtered. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether any person or group ever made a threat or order that he leave Bangladesh within one week or be killed because he had become a Christian.  In response, the applicant said ‘No’.  The Tribunal asked the applicant to therefore explain the evidence in the newspaper article that such an ultimatum was given.  In response, the applicant said that after he came to Australia a friend of X had found about this and the applicant had asked him to retrieve the article.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why he initially said that he was not aware of any such order or statement being made when he had in his possession a newspaper article to that effect.  In response, the applicant said that he did not read it in that way that he could recollect that.  That is an inadequate explanation for his failure to recall this important claim.

5. The Tribunal put to the applicant that, according to this article, [in] October 2013, while [in] his local area, some ‘youths of the locality’ surrounded him and ‘[beat him] mercilessly and causing blood wounds [that] left him helplessly on the road’.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that this appeared to be a far more serious incident than the one he related as occurring on this date on which he said he was hit once or twice, did not need medical attention and was able to run away.  In response, the applicant said that a journalist wrote the article and what he saw and what he wrote were his own words not those of the applicant.  The Tribunal acknowledges that claim but it is not persuasive.  The account of this incident in the article and the account the applicant gave the Tribunal are inconsistent.

   Concerns about the applicant’s actions after returning to Bangladesh from [Country 2] in July 2013

6. To the Tribunal, the applicant said that following his return from [Country 1] in August 2012 he continued to go to church and so relationships with family and AA continued to deteriorate.  He travelled briefly to [Country 2] in [July] 2013 because, by then, X had been sacked for his involvement with the applicant and there were problems in the business for the same reason.  Subsequently, the applicant’s wife left him taking their child with her and went to live with her parents telling him that she would not reunite him unless he came back to Islam.

7. The applicant made clear in his evidence to the Tribunal that on or just after his return from [Country 2] he went into hiding in fear of harm from others, in particular, a fear of harm from AA who he believed was looking for him from that time.  In this respect, the applicant said that on return from [Country 2] he stayed a few days at his home in Dhaka but would not stay there after that, the applicant initially saying that his wife would not give him access to the home because of his involvement with Christianity; the applicant then subsequently saying that in fact he stopped living at the marital home to save his life because he thought AA was looking for him.  Instead he stayed at the home of friends and at the home of X.  He added that in this period he was too afraid to go back to his native village because his father also disapproved of what he had done, neighbours were aware of that and also disapproved and, in addition, he believed that AA was also looking for him in the village.  Indeed, he also stopped attending church after getting baptised [in] September 2013 because he had been told that AA was also watching to see if he went there. 

8. Notwithstanding the applicant’s claim that soon after returning to Bangladesh from [Country 2] he went into hiding in fear for his life, he also said that he continued to visit his office at his business, his last visit being [in] October 2013 when, as discussed above, he claimed that AA came there and said that he had to be killed.  This was although he said that everyone at his business was also talking about what he had done.  When asked why he would take the risk of going back to the business when claiming to be in hiding from AA, the applicant said that he would go back when he thought that AA would not be there; when he went he did not actually do any work and he went there to talk to the other partners about selling his share in the business.  He went a number of times but could not recall how many before his final visit [in] October 2013.

9. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it had difficulty accepting that if he had stopped living in his marital home soon after his return from [Country 2] in July 2013 in fear of being found by AA that he would, nevertheless, continue to go to his business a number of times as he had told the Tribunal until, finally, [in] October 2013 when he said that AA threatened that he had to be killed.  The Tribunal had difficulty accepting that if the applicant was really in fear from this person he would continue to go to a place where he was most likely to encounter him.  In response, the applicant said that he would not go to the business when AA was there.  He had a vast investment in the business and was worried about how he could retrieve it.  For that reason he wanted to discuss that with the other partners, he would stay for one and a half hours to talk about that and then leave.  The Tribunal is not persuaded by those responses considering the applicant was claiming, in effect, that his life was at risk.

10. The Tribunal also put to the applicant that it had difficulty accepting that he would take the risk of going back to his village [in] October 2013 to see his mother when he had told the Tribunal that he had not gone back there before that because he was afraid that people there would harm him.  In response, the applicant said that he loved his mother so much and had not seen (or would not be seeing) her for a long time and so he wanted to take that risk.  He added that he went there covertly with X.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why he would risk going to the village with the very person who had led him to take steps that had placed his life in danger.  In response, the applicant said that he wanted to go with X; see his mother and send news there through X.  When asked what he meant by that, the applicant said that he could not directly go to his home and X could send news to them maybe through others; he did not know.  Again, the Tribunal found those responses unpersuasive and he did not allay the Tribunal’s concerns about this aspect of his account.

    Concerns about the applicant’s willingness to become a Christian

11. The Tribunal had difficulty accepting the overall account being advanced by the applicant that that he would begin and develop an interest in Christianity intensifying into conversion by swearing an affidavit followed by Baptism when, at the same time, this sparked disapproval from those closest to him which then, over the same period, intensified into the threat to his life, a threat he took seriously enough to go into hiding and then leave Bangladesh.  It seemed incongruous to the Tribunal that the applicant, over a relatively short period of time from his first visit to the Church in mid-2012, would be so willing to destroy significant relationships and aspects of his life such as his marriage, his relationship with his own family in the village and his relationship to someone to whom he had originally felt very close and with whom he had invested money to establish and operate a business.

12. The Tribunal questioned the applicant about this and the decisions he made along the way to even begin attending a church, the decision to swear an affidavit that he was a Christian and then become baptised in the face of the difficulties he said he was in because of what he was doing.  For example, the Tribunal asked the applicant why it was not until mid-2012 that he would start to go to a church in Dhaka with X when he told the Tribunal that in fact from the time they attended high school together they discussed religion and X had been suggesting the applicant attend church with him.  The applicant’s responses were not persuasive.  He referred to not going to Dhaka much when they were in their villages; not having the time or the chance to go and then, finally, deciding to go because he felt good about it.

13. When asked to explain what he meant by feeling good about going, he referred to what X told him about Christianity but beyond that there was no other source of information about the religion.  Apart from X, at school, he met some of X’s Christian friends.  As to what X told him that made him feel good, the applicant just broadly talked about Jesus sacrificing his life for others.  As for why he would continue to go to church when, within weeks of his first visit, his wife and, through her, AA, had expressed disapproval, he said that he just liked the Christians at the church.  The Tribunal did not find any of these responses compelling or persuasive considering the applicant’s circumstances at the time.

14. When asked why he saw the need to swear an affidavit in July 2013 that he was now a Christian, when, at the same time, he was in hiding in fear for his life, the applicant said that he had just decided he wanted to convert, he talked it over with X and was advised to follow this step.  Again, with respect to being baptised in September 2013, he said he had been thinking about it, discussed it with X and went to the church to do it after making the affidavit.  Apart from his contact with people at the church, he did not attend any classes in Christianity before that or in relation to becoming baptised. 

15. Finally, when the Tribunal put its concern to the applicant about the incongruity of the whole account of wanting to go to church, followed by wanting to convert to Christianity against what the applicant had to lose and did eventually lose in terms of family, business and his own security, the applicant just referred to X being a long time close friend with whom he had always talked about religion.  He liked the Christians he met at the church, he thought there were better things about Christianity and Christians which were not present in Islam or in Moslems and he was willing to accept whatever the consequences would be for his love of Christianity.  The Tribunal is not persuaded by those responses and, indeed, found the applicant to be artificial and lacking in any real conviction when these concerns were put to him.[4] 

    [4] In his written statement the applicant also made these same broad and unconvincing claims for his interest in Christianity.

16. This impression was confirmed by the manner in which the applicant has pursued Christianity since his arrival in Australia.  The applicant said that from the time of his arrival in Australia and up until the present time he has regularly attended a church (‘church one’) and, on a few occasions some time ago, he attended a different church (‘church two’).  Not long after his arrival, he was baptised in church one.  When asked if he could actually understand what was said during church services in Australia the applicant said that he could not because he did not have that level of English.  For the same reason he did not attend any study groups with other Christians but he showed the Tribunal some books on Christianity written in Bengali and he said he was reading them. 

17. Surprisingly, when asked if he had made any effort to meet other Bangladeshi or Bengali speaking Christians, the applicant said that he knew of one Bangladeshi Christian but that was all.  He said that he had not made any effort to meet any other Bangladeshi or Bengali speaking Christians since his arrival in Australia.  When asked why he would make no effort in that respect given that those people spoke his language and he could have furthered his knowledge of Christianity through them, the applicant said that he was content to go to church one, he did not think about it and he just tried to talk to people at church one in English.  Since the Tribunal had suggested it, he said that after the hearing he would make some effort to meet those people. 

18. If the applicant truly had the love of Christianity he claimed to have and for which he sacrificed so much in Bangladesh, the Tribunal does not believe that he would make no effort after arriving here to find people from his country or who could speak his language who also follow Christianity so that he could further his claimed intense interest in that religion.  The fact the applicant has not made any effort to meet and congregate with other Bangladeshi or Bengali speaking Christians in Australia, in the Tribunal’s view, reflected poorly on the credibility of his claim to be a committed Christian.  At his interview with the delegate, the applicant and representative mentioned keeping a low profile in Australia because of his religion.  However, if the applicant had the commitment to Christianity he claims to have, he would have made efforts to meet other Christians from his country or who speak his language so as to be able to better practice that religion.

19. Again, this overall impression of untruthfulness on the applicant’s part with respect to his claims to be a committed Christian was enhanced by evidence he gave at his interview with the delegate held in March 2014 that he had a [social media website] page on which he declared that he was a Moslem (referred to in this decision as ‘the social media website’).  At the hearing the Tribunal reminded the applicant of this evidence and he said that it was true that, as at that time, his page on the social media website contained that information.  He said that it was some time ago that he declared on the social media website that he was a Moslem and simply did not think to change that even though he had subsequently become a Christian and encountered difficulties because of that.  He told the Tribunal that, at present, his page on the social media website does not declare that he follows any religion.  He could not remember when he deleted the reference to him being a Moslem (although it was after his interview with the delegate).  He has on one occasion posted a picture to that page showing him in a church, but, when the Tribunal asked him why he did that, he just said there was no reason.

20. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was surprised at his evidence that he would have on the social media website, information about himself to the effect that he was a Moslem as at March 2014 when, well before then, he had, so he claimed, become a Christian and suffered much for doing so.  In response, the applicant glibly said that he did not think about changing that information nor did he know he had to.  The Tribunal put to the applicant that he would have surely wanted information about himself he was willingly making public to, at the least, not indicate he was a Muslim when he had gone through so much to leave that religion and adopt a new one.  In response, the applicant said that he did not use his page on the social media website that way, but, when asked why he had that page, he said it was something that everybody did.  He then just went back to saying he was not aware that he had to say something on it about religion and did not notice anything about religion.  This was the case, even though, he confirmed to the Tribunal, evidence he gave to the delegate that, by the time of that interview, he had posted photographs on his page on the social media website showing himself at locations in [Australia].

21. To the delegate, the applicant claimed that he had not deleted the reference to him being a Moslem media website because he was using somebody else’s computer.  His representative submitted to the delegate that the reference had not been deleted because the applicant thought he was safe in Australia and so he just did not think about it.  The Tribunal rejects all of those explanations and finds that the failure of the applicant to delete from his page on the social media website a statement that he is Moslem by as late as March 2014, when he had been in Australia for some months, to be inconsistent with his claim to be an intensely committed Christian who sacrificed much in Bangladesh to pursue that religion.

    Conclusions on credibility and assessment of the risk of serious harm

22. Considered cumulatively, the concerns the Tribunal holds about the applicant's credibility lead the Tribunal to find that he is not a witness of truth and the account of events on which his protection claims are based is false.  Therefore the Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s claims that he had a Christian friend in Bangladesh through whom he was introduced to Christianity; that he attended church in Bangladesh and that he converted to Christianity there.  Accordingly the Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s claims about the harm he claims ensued from those matters, in particular, that he was rejected by his family; that his wife left him; that a business partner AA rejected, threatened, followed and sought to harm him and that people in his native village or anywhere else in Bangladesh threatened, rejected or attacked him.

1. To the delegate and also to the Tribunal the applicant displayed a very basic and rudimentary knowledge or understanding of Christianity.  There is no credible evidence as to the reasons the applicant acquired that very basic understanding.  He does not have that understanding or knowledge because he is a Christian.  That is because the Tribunal does not believe his claims to have become a Christian.  Similarly, there is no credible evidence as to why the applicant would have books on Christianity written in Bengali which he showed the Tribunal at the hearing.  The applicant claimed to the Tribunal to have posted a photograph on his page on the social media website showing him attending a church in Australia, but, because he is not a witness of truth, the Tribunal does not believe that claim.  Further, the Tribunal sets out below its findings about the applicant’s church attendance in Australia.

2. To the department, the applicant produced documents to corroborate his claims to be a Christian.  He submitted an ‘affidavit of conversion’ made [in] July 2013 in which he said he has become a Christian.[5]  He submitted a certificate of baptism purportedly issued by a church in Dhaka according to which he was baptised [in] September 2013.[6]  In addition, the applicant submitted a certificate from church one stating that he was baptised in that church [in] October 2013.[7]  He also submitted a letter dated [in] March 2014 from church two according to which he had been attending that church since December 2013.[8]  The Tribunal has carefully considered the contents of these documents but they do not overcome the concerns the Tribunal holds about the applicant’s credibility which significantly discredit him as a witness.  Accordingly, as for the documents emanating from Bangladesh, the Tribunal does not give evidentiary weight to them.  The Tribunal finds that the contents of those documents are false.  The Tribunal does not believe the applicant attended church in Bangladesh, let alone converted to Christianity and underwent Baptism there.

   [5] See folios 98-99 of the department file.

   [6] See folio 20 of the department file.

   [7] See folio 19 of the department file.

   [8] See folio 100 of the department file.

3. With respect to the documents emanating from church one and church two, both based in Australia, the letter from church one is nothing more than a certificate of baptism.  Because the applicant is not a witness of truth it has no credible evidence as to when or on what basis the applicant has attended church one.  The letter was issued not long after the applicant arrived in Australia and while it indicates he underwent a baptism in that church there is no other credible evidence before the Tribunal as to the circumstances of that.  Possibly the applicant was able to persuade church one that he had a commitment to Christianity but the Tribunal is in a better position to properly assess the applicant’s credibility in that respect.  The contents of the letter from church one do not overcome the Tribunal’s concerns about this applicant’s credibility.  The fact church one allowed him to undergo a baptism does not demonstrate to the Tribunal that the applicant is a Christian.  The Tribunal finds the applicant is not a Christian and has no commitment to that religion.

4. Similarly, with respect to the letter from church two, beyond some general claims the applicant has attended that church, the Tribunal again finds that it has no credible evidence about over what period and how often the applicant did this.  While the author of the letter from church two expresses the view that the applicant was genuine in his Christian faith the Tribunal is in a much better position to determine the truthfulness of the applicant’s claims about that.  The contents of this letter do not overcome the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s credibility and there is no credible evidence as to why the applicant went to church two.  The Tribunal does not believe he went to that church because he is a Christian.   The author of the letter from church two records the applicant as stating that his life was in danger in Bangladesh because he converted to Christianity, but, the Tribunal finds those claims are false.  The author of this letter also refers to people from the church community visiting the applicant at his home where they noticed he had a Bengali language Bible.  However, the Tribunal finds there is no credible evidence as to why the applicant had that in his possession.  The Tribunal is satisfied he did not have that Bible in his possession because he is a Christian.[9] 

   [9] It was because there is no credible evidence as to the applicant's church attendance in Australia, as to why he would attend church here and as to why he would have Christian materials in his possession that the Tribunal did not find that those matters fell within the meaning of s.91R(3) of the Act.

5. As discussed earlier in this decision, the applicant also produced to the department and the Tribunal an article from a newspaper in Bangladesh asserting that he was attacked in Bangladesh because of his conversion to Christianity.  The Tribunal has set out above the inconsistency in the applicant’s evidence between what he told the Tribunal about this and what is reported in that article.  The contents of the article do not overcome the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s credibility.  Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the contents of the newspaper article are false and the Tribunal does not give evidentiary weight to it.

6. The representative made written submissions on the applicant’s behalf dated [in] November 2013, 1 August 2014 and 5 December 2015 in which the representative repeats the applicant’s claims and, in the most recent submissions, submits why the applicant is at risk of harm in Bangladesh (on the basis that those claims are true).  The Tribunal has considered the submissions but, for the reasons given above, finds that the applicant’s claims are false and so these submissions are of no assistance to him.

7. The applicant made a residual claim to the department and the Tribunal that another reason he left Bangladesh was because he was being telephoned by a man who the applicant’s cousin accused of raping her and which caused her to leave Bangladesh and come to Australia where she has, unsuccessfully, applied for protection.[10]  The applicant said that this man telephoned him because he lived in the same apartment complex as his cousin and this man was asking the applicant for his cousin’s whereabouts.  The applicant resides with this cousin in [the same location]].  She was not called as a witness at the Tribunal hearing.  Because the applicant is not a witness of truth it disbelieves his claims that an individual in Bangladesh telephoned him asking for the whereabouts of this cousin and that this person has any interest in him.  There is therefore no credible evidence that the applicant is at risk of harm in Bangladesh because of his association with this particular cousin.

   [10] In this respect, the application made by the cousin was refused by the delegate and that decision was affirmed by this Tribunal (differently constituted) in a decision dated [in] 2015 – See RRT Case Number [case number removed].

8. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a Moslem man from Bangladesh who was operating a business there in partnership with others.  His claims to have become a Christian in Bangladesh and to fear returning there on that ground are false.  There is no credible evidence as to why the applicant left Bangladesh and came to Australia (and, for that matter, as to why he went to [Country 1] and [Country 2]).  There is no credible evidence as to why the applicant does not want to return to Bangladesh.  There is no credible evidence that the applicant suffered harm in Bangladesh and that anyone in Bangladesh seeks to harm him.  On those grounds, there is not a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm in Bangladesh and he does not hold a well founded fear of persecution based on any convention ground.

   Complementary protection

9. With respect to the complementary protection criterion the Tribunal repeats its finding that the applicant is not a witness of truth and the account of events on which his protection claims are based is false.  The Tribunal disbelieves the applicant’s claims that he converted to Christianity in Bangladesh as well as his claims about the events that followed from that.   The Tribunal has no credible evidence before it as to the applicant’s church attendance in Australia in terms of when that occurred and over what period.  As stated above the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is not a Christian and he has no commitment to that religion.  

10. There is no credible evidence that the applicant suffered harm in Bangladesh and no credible evidence that anyone in Bangladesh seeks to harm him.  There is no credible evidence as to why the applicant left Bangladesh to come to Australia.  There is no credible evidence as to why he does not want to return to Bangladesh.  For all of these reasons, there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant’s removal from Australia to the receiving country, Bangladesh, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.

    CONCLUSIONS

11. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

12. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

13. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).

    DECISION

14. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

    Paul Millar
    Member