1414710 (Refugee)

1414710 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4891 (20 June 2016)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1414710
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Bangladesh
MEMBER:Linda Symons
DATE:20 June 2016
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 20 June 2016 at 10:40am
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Bangladesh – Imputed political opinion – Bangladesh National Party (BNP) member – Encouraged people to vote – Attacked by members of opposing political parties
Accused of murder – Credibility issues – Poor knowledge of the BNP – Delay in leaving Australia – Decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65, 424AA, 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

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 claims to be a citizen of Bangladesh, arrived [by] boat on 4 December 2012. He was detained and subsequently issued with a Bridging visa on 8 May 2013. This visa expired on 3 July 2013 and he thereafter became an unlawful non-citizen. On 5 August 2013, he was granted a further Bridging visa.
The applicant applied to the Department of Immigration and Border Control (the Department) for a Protection visa on 20 May 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 21 August 2014. On 28 August 2014, he applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 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 issues that arise on review are whether Australia has protection obligations to the applicant under the Refugees Convention or under the complementary protection criterion.
RELEVANT LAW
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.
Refugee criterion
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).
Complementary protection criterion
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’).
Section 499 Ministerial Direction
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 –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 expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
The applicant’s claims in his visa application are summarised as follows:
·He was born in Bangladesh and is [age] years old. He is a Bangladeshi citizen. He is of Bengali ethnicity and is a Sunni Muslim.
·He is not married and has no children. His parents and siblings live in Bangladesh.
·He has lived in Bangladesh all his life. He left Bangladesh on a false passport provided by a people smuggler. He has never applied for a passport in his own name.
·After completing school he was unemployed for some time. It is difficult to find work in Bangladesh and his father supported him financially. He then worked [for] a couple of years. He was thereafter unemployed until he left Bangladesh.
·When he finished his job [he] joined the Bangladesh National Party (BNP). He joined this party because some of his friends did and he was interested. He has been an active member of the BNP for about 15 years. This has resulted in threats against his life, torture and resulted in him leaving Bangladesh. He has continued his support for the party because he believes in what they stand for.
·After about 5 years of supporting and being involved in the BNP he was taken by members of the opposition party Ameglick while returning home. They beat him on the side of the road until he fell unconscious. They did not say anything to him but he knows it was them as they are the only group that would want to inflict harm on him.
·In 2005, members of the Ameglick party asked him to join them and leave the BNP. He refused to do so. This happened on a regular basis. They knew he was a member of the BNP because he would go around the village regularly to speak about supporting the BNP. His name is on the list of members of the BNP.
·In 2008, there was an election and he was involved in the campaign. He organized a few meetings in this area. After the elections, he continued to attend meetings held by the BNP. This happened about once or twice a month.
·In around June 2011, he was again approached by the Ameglick and asked to join them. He refused to do so.
·[In] August 2011, a journalist was murdered in Bangladesh. He was told by a friend, who was a Policeman, that he was one of [several] suspected of the murder. His friend told him that the government planned to wrongfully implicate him in the murder so they could arrest him. They were doing this because of his involvement with the BNP. He feared that if he remained in his family home and his area it would be a matter of time before the Police arrested him. He fled to his uncle’s home where he remained in hiding until he made arrangements to flee to Australia.
·After he left his family home, the Police went there looking for him on two occasions. The last time was in February 2012. In November 2012, he left Bangladesh for Australia.
·Since arriving in Australia he has not been told anything about the murder trial of the journalist. About two months ago, one of his friends was beaten up by people from the Ameglick party because he is an active member of the BNP.
·He believes that if he returns to Bangladesh he will be seriously harmed or killed by the government or government supporters for reasons of his political opinion on the basis that he has actively supported the BNP for the past 15 years. He believes he will be harmed or wrongfully accused of murder and subjected to torture.
·The authorities will not protect him. He fears the authorities as they persecute people who do not support their government.
·He cannot relocate because he fears persecution throughout the country. He does not have family in other parts of the country with whom he can reside.
The applicant provided to the Department two newspaper articles without English translations, a Birth Certificate, a Citizenship and Character Certificate dated [December] 2012, a Chairman’s Certificate without an English translation and a Voter ID Card.
The applicant attended an interview with the Department on 28 July 2014. During that interview, he re-iterated and expanded on his written claims.
The applicant has lodged with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated 21 August 2014.
On 7 December 2015, the Tribunal received written submissions from the applicant’s migration agent.
Nationality
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh, based on his Bangladeshi Birth Certificate, a Citizenship and Character Certificate, his evidence and his fluency in the Bengali language, and will assess his claims on this basis. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is outside his country of nationality. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that he has a right to enter and reside in any country other than his country of nationality.
Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the Refugees Convention?
The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that his migration agent prepared his application for a Protection visa based on his instructions. He stated that his instructions were true and correct and that he was satisfied that his visa application was accurate.
During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his background, his family, his involvement with the BNP, his reasons for coming to Australia and why he fears returning to Bangladesh. His evidence was that he had problems with the Awami League party (AL) in Bangladesh and not the “Ameglick party” as referred to in his written claims. The Tribunal found his evidence to be contradictory, implausible, inconsistent and unconvincing. His actions are not consistent with his claims. The Tribunal has concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims. The Tribunal’s concerns are noted below.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant his claims in relation to his association with the BNP and the problems he had as a result. When asked when he first became interested in the BNP, he responded that he joined the BNP after leaving work. (According to his visa application, he last worked in Bangladesh in 1997 and was unemployed between 1997 and 2012). When asked why he joined the BNP, he responded that he liked the BNP’s rules and regulations. When asked what BNP rules and regulations he liked, he responded in words to the effect “the development, peace for the country, all my family members are supporters of the BNP. I used to give votes”. When asked what he meant by “I used to give votes”, he responded that he did work for the BNP. He stated that he was involved in campaigning for the election and helped to organize processions. He stated that he used to tell people in the village about the BNP. When asked what he told them about the BNP, he responded that he used to circulate information such as ‘there is a meeting tomorrow. Please come to the meeting.’
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he was a supporter or a member of the BNP. He stated that he was a supporter of the BNP for 15 years and then became a member in 2008 or it could have been before that. When asked about the procedure to become a member of the BNP, he stated that after working for the BNP for that period a “higher member” in the party was satisfied with his work and gave him a position. He stated that he did not have to fill out any forms or pay any fees to become a member of the BNP. When asked about his responsibilities as a member of the BNP, he responded that his main job was to “collect people to attend the meetings” which he stated were held about once a month. He stated that he was involved in campaigning prior to the 2008 national election and used to go to every house and tell people to vote for the BNP.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how he convinced people to vote for the BNP. He responded that he used to say “salaam”, tell people about the candidate and praise them and their policy to develop the local area. He stated that he did not vote in the 2008 national election. He stated that on Election Day he did not attend the polling centre because the environment and the political situation was not good. He stated that he did not hold an official position in the BNP in his local area. When asked whether he has ever voted in an election in Bangladesh, he answered no. He stated that they made a “Voter List” and issued Voter ID cards prior to the 2008 election. He stated that he was issued with a Voter ID card in 2007 but there was a mistake with his date of birth. He stated that it was issued in his [name]’. He stated that after he came to Australia his brother applied to have his Voter ID card amended and re-issued.
The Tribunal asked the applicant the name of the local BNP candidate in the 2008 national election. He responded that his first name is [Mr A name] but he did not know his surname. He then stated [Mr A’s full name]. When asked who won the local seat in the 2008 national election, he responded that the AL had a massive win. He stated that the local AL candidate was [Mr B]. He stated that he continued to support the BNP after the election and supports them in Australia. He stated that he attends BNP meetings in Australia and listens to what the political leaders say. When asked what leaders he has listened to, he responded that people come to the local area on special days for the BNP and they have a meeting. He stated that the meetings are held in [Australian suburbs deleted] and people are informed of the meetings.
The Tribunal noted that in his visa application, he claimed that he continued to support the BNP because he believed in what they stand for. When asked what it is that they stand for that he believes in, the applicant responded that when he joined the BNP the main person was the late Ziaur Rahman. He stated that he was the person who did all the development work for the country and he believes that there is no one like him. When asked about the four main principles of the BNP, he responded that he is from a village and does not understand much. When asked what the BNP stands for, he responded that the people who work for the BNP in his local area do what they say and he believes them. He stated that when he was unemployed some of his friends used to support the BNP and he went along with them. He stated that he does not understand the aims and objectives of the BNP.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was able to describe the flag of the BNP party. He responded “paddy” and then stated that he could not. When asked if he could draw the BNP flag he stated that he could not. He stated that his “brain is not working at all”. He stated that after he was beaten he lost his memory. He stated that he is “short of memory”. When asked the colours of the BNP flag, he stated that he could not remember.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant his written claim that after about 5 years of supporting and being involved in the BNP he was taken by members of the AL and beaten until he was unconscious. He stated that he was not taken anywhere. He stated that he was walking down the street on his own when some people hit him from behind. He stated that he did not see who they were or hear them say anything. He stated that they did not take anything from him. He stated that they hit him and left. He stated that someone saw him and took him to hospital where he received [stiches]. He stated that he did not report this incident to the Police.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how he knows his attackers are members of the AL if he did not see them or hear them. He responded that he did not have any enemies. He stated that members of the AL were “constantly” trying to get him to join their party. He stated that they could see that he was a hard worker for the BNP and wanted him to work for the AL. When asked whether members of the AL asked other BNP supporters in his village to join the AL, he responded that they did. He stated that his friends who worked with him have left Bangladesh. He stated that some of them went to [Country 1]. He stated that one of his friends was severely beaten in 2013 for not joining the AL and was in hospital for 3 months. When asked when the members of the AL last asked him to join them, he responded in 2011.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant his claims in relation to his implication in the murder of a journalist in Bangladesh. He stated that a famous journalist by the name of [Mr C] was murdered on [date] August 2011. He stated that the journalist was killed on the main road when he was on his way home from the market. He stated that he was [in] the market at that time. He stated that at about 8.30pm one of his friends, who is a Policeman and supported him, told him about the murder of [Mr C], that he saw a list, that his name could be on the list and that he should leave. He stated that he went to his uncle’s house which was 40kms to 50kms away. He stated that he stayed there from [date] August 2011 until November 2012 when he left Bangladesh. When asked what he did during that time, he stated that he used to go to his uncle’s shop, sit there, have tea and come home with him. He stated that he used this time to do a 6 months [course]. He stated that his older brother made the arrangements for him to leave Bangladesh.
The applicant gave evidence that the Police went to his home looking for him on a couple of occasions in 2011 and the last occasion was in February 2012. The Tribunal asked him why he waited until November 2012 to leave Bangladesh if the Police were searching for him. He responded that he did not get the opportunity. He stated that some of his friends left the country and he was trying. When asked whether his father or brother had any problems as a result of the Police looking for him, he responded yes. He stated that the Police went to his house to arrest him, he was not there so they asked his parents questions. He stated that they ask about him “all the time”. When asked whether his father or brother had any problems as BNP supporters, he responded that they were subjected to some verbal abuse by AL supporters.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether anyone was charged in relation to the murder of the journalist. He responded that everyone, including him, fled. When asked how many people were accused, he responded that he saw the papers later and including him there were [several] people. When asked what happened to the other accused, he responded that he has no idea. He stated that they are “big criminals” and “terrorists”. He stated that his brother tried his best to get his name removed from the list. When asked how he did that, he stated that there are some senior people in the village and if there is a problem his brother takes these people to the Police Station and says what he wants. He stated that he could not get his name removed from the list. He stated that that is why he had to leave Bangladesh.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what he thought was likely to happen if he returned to Bangladesh. He responded that only God can say what will happen to him. When asked whether he considered relocating to another place in Bangladesh such as Dhaka or Chittagong, he responded that he does not have anyone there. He stated that if new people move into an area a lot of questions are asked. He stated that they are suspicious and if they have suspicions about anyone they kill them. He stated that there are abandoned dead bodies in his area. When asked if there was any reason why he could not live with his uncle again seeing as he was able to live with him for 1 year and 3 months without any problems, he responded that he had a “hidden life in his house” and his uncle was under tension as well. The Tribunal noted that it was not very hidden if he was attending [classes], going to the bazaar and going out to tea. He responded that they were tense at that time and people were taking information all the time.

The applicant stated that if he returns to Bangladesh he will be charged or he will be dead. He stated that he would be subject to inhuman torture. He stated that there is no justice in Bangladesh. He stated that people are caught and killed.
The Tribunal has a number of concerns in relation to the applicant’s claims. The applicant’s evidence is that he became a supporter of the BNP in 1997 and subsequently became a member of the BNP in about 2008. When asked about the procedure to become a member of the BNP, he stated that after working for the BNP for that period, a “higher member” in the party was satisfied with his work and gave him a position. He stated that he did not have to fill out any forms or pay any fees to become a member of the BNP. This is not consistent with the country information. The BNP Constitution requires that ‘an application for membership form’ has to be completed and lodged at the party office together with a fee of 5 taka.[1] When the Tribunal raised this as an issue with the applicant and noted its concerns about whether he was ever a member of the BNP, he responded “I understand”. This response does not alleviate the Tribunals concerns.
[1] BNP Constitution. (>
The applicant gave evidence that he became a supporter of the BNP in 1997 and subsequently became a member of the BNP in about 2008. He stated that he attended meetings where he listened to leaders speak, that he helped to organize processions, that he spoke to people in the village about the BNP, that he was involved in the election campaign for the 2008 national elections, that he continued to support the BNP because he believed in what they stood for and that after he came to Australia he attended BNP party functions and meetings. He also claimed that he joined the BNP because he liked the BNP’s rules and regulations. The Tribunal asked him what BNP rules and regulations he liked and his response was vague. The Tribunal asked him questions about the principles of the BNP and the aims and objectives of the BNP which he was unable to answer.
The Tribunal is mindful of the fact that the applicant is from a village in Bangladesh and that he has a limited education and is therefore unlikely to have a sophisticated understanding of the policies of the BNP, despite his claims that he joined the BNP because he liked the BNP’s rules and regulations and continued to support them because he believed in what they stood for. The Tribunal therefore asked him to draw or describe the flag of the BNP party, which he was unable to do. The Tribunal then asked him the colours of the flag of the BNP which he was unable to answer. The Tribunal is of the view that if the applicant was associated with the BNP since 1997, attended processions, was involved in the 2008 election campaign and has attended BNP party functions in Australia he should be familiar with the BNP party flag.
The Tribunal raised as an issue with the applicant its concerns in relation to his poor knowledge of the BNP and that this was not consistent with his claims. He responded that he did not want to say anything and had nothing to say. He questioned “if a person who rides a rickshaw can be a member, why can’t I?” This response does not address the issue raised by the Tribunal.
The applicant has lodged with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated 21 August 2014. It indicates that, during an earlier interview with the Department on 22 February 2013, the applicant stated that he has never held a Voter ID card. However, during his interview with the Department on 28 July 2014, he produced a copy of a Voter ID card which had been issued in 2006 or 2007. It indicates that when he was asked how he was able to produce a Voter ID card if he had never been issued with one, he responded that he might have misheard the question and answered incorrectly. It also indicates that he stated that a previous Voter ID card had been issued to him in the name of ‘[Applicant’s Alias 1]’ and that a new card (the one he provided the Department) had subsequently been issued to him. It indicates that when the delegate noted that the date of birth on the card he provided was [Date of birth 1] when he claimed that his date of birth was [Date of birth 2], the applicant agreed that the date of birth on the Voter ID card was incorrect and stated that in Bangladesh there is no record of age and they look at people’s height and guess their age.
During the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that in 2007 a Voter List was prepared and he was issued with a Voter ID card. He stated that the card was issued in his [name], but his date of birth was incorrect. He stated that it was subsequently fixed. This evidence is inconsistent with the evidence he gave the Department that the card was issued in the name of ‘[Applicant’s Alias 1]’ and had to be re-issued. This raises concerns in relation to the applicant’s credibility.
The applicant gave evidence that he was an active and hard-working supporter of the BNP since 1997 and member since about 2008. He stated that he spoke to people in the village about voting for the BNP and he campaigned for the BNP in the 2008 national election. He stated that members of the AL wanted him to join them for this reason. However, he also stated that he never voted for the BNP. He did not claim that problems with his Voter ID card prevented him from doing so. His failure to ever vote for the BNP is not consistent with his claims. When the Tribunal raised this as an issue with the applicant, he responded that he did not vote in the 2008 national election because the situation was not favourable and he could have been shot. The country information indicates that there were numerous national Parliamentary elections, national Presidential elections and local government City Corporation elections, Upazila elections, Municipality elections and Union elections since 1997[2] that the applicant could have voted in to support the BNP. His failure to do so raises concerns in relation to the credibility of his claims.
[2] Election Commission Bangladesh. (>
The applicant gave evidence that the local BNP candidate in his constituency for the national election in 2008 was called ‘[Mr A’s surname]’. He initially stated that he did not know his surname and then stated that his name was [Mr A’s full name]. The country information indicates that there were six constituencies in the Jessore district where the applicant lived and there were no candidates with the name “[Mr A’s surname]’ or ‘[Mr A’s full name]’ in any of those constituencies.[3] This raises further concerns in relation to the credibility of the applicant’s claims. When the Tribunal raised this as an issue with the applicant, he responded that the BNP leader was [Mr A]. The Tribunal prefers the evidence from the Election Commission Bangladesh to the applicant’s evidence.
[3] Election Commission Bangladesh.
The Tribunal finds the applicant’s claims that he was attacked by members of the AL and left unconscious to be implausible. His evidence is that the members of the AL wanted him to join them and continued to ask him to do so until 2011. The Tribunal would expect that if they wanted him to join them, they would have offered him incentives, such as a job, to do so. Alternatively, if they were trying to persuade him to join them in a more forceful manner, the Tribunal would expect them to have identified themselves and threatened him or roughed him up as a warning of what was likely to happen if he did not join them. Attacking him from behind and knocking him unconscious, leaving him in a situation where he did not know who attacked him or why, does not serve their purpose of getting him to join them. The Tribunal also finds the applicant’s evidence that he did not report this incident to the Police to be implausible in light of his evidence that he has a friend who is a Policeman and who supports him.
During the hearing, the applicant claimed that as a result of this attack he lost his memory and is “short of memory”. The Tribunal has not been provided with any medical or psychological evidence in relation to his loss of memory following the attack or any ongoing memory problems. The Tribunal had the opportunity to observe the applicant during a lengthy hearing and to interact with him throughout the hearing. The Tribunal is satisfied that he was able to participate in the hearing in a meaningful way.
The applicant claimed that a famous journalist by the name of [Mr C] was murdered on [date] August 2011, that he was falsely implicated in the murder and there is a case against him. During his interview with the Department on 28 July 2014, he produced an undated article, without an English translation, which he claimed was a report on the murder of [Mr C]. Country information indicates that 20 journalists have been killed in Bangladesh since 1992. The Committee to Protect Journalists has no record of any journalists being killed in Bangladesh in 2011.[4] The Tribunal was unable to find any record of a journalist named [Mr C] being killed in Bangladesh in 2011. This raises concerns for the Tribunal in relation to the credibility of the applicant’s claims and the authenticity of the newspaper article he provided to the Department. When the Tribunal raised these issues with the applicant, he responded that he had nothing to say. He stated that what he had said is the truth and he could not prove it.
[4] Committee to Protect Journalists. (>
The country information indicates that Odhikar is a human rights organization in Bangladesh. In its Human Rights Report for 2011, it stated that 139 journalists were injured, 53 threatened, 24 attacked, 43 assaulted and cases were filed against 23 journalists during 2011.[5] It did not report that any journalists were killed in Bangladesh in 2011. This raises further concerns in relation to the credibility of the applicant’s claims and the authenticity of the newspaper article he provided to the Department. When the Tribunal raised these issues with the applicant, he responded that he told the Tribunal that these journalists collect news and give it to them. He stated that he does not know whether they have a licence to work as a journalist. He stated that they are journalists in the local area. He stated that this person was a journalist and was killed. When the Tribunal reminded him of his earlier evidence that the journalist who was murdered was a famous journalist, he responded that he wrote on local matters, he does not know whether he had a licence, he died in that year and that is one hundred percent correct. The Tribunal prefers the evidence from organizations such as The Committee to Protect Journalists and Odhikar to the applicant’s evidence.
[5] Odhikar, Human Rights Report 2011, Odhikar Report on Bangladesh, 7 January 2012.( >
The applicant gave evidence that, after he was warned by a Policeman friend that he was implicated in the murder of [Mr C], he left his home and went into hiding at his uncle’s home. In his visa application, he claimed that after he left his family home the Police went there looking for him on two occasions. He stated that the last occasion was in February 2012. During the hearing, he gave evidence that the Police went to his home on three occasions; twice in 2011 and the last time in February 2012. This inconsistency raises concerns about the credibility of his claims.
During the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he stayed with his uncle from [date] August 2011 until November 2012 when he left Bangladesh. He stated that during this time he used to go to his uncle’s shop in the bazaar and have tea in the bazaar. This is inconsistent with his claims that he was living in hiding and it raises concerns in relation to the credibility of those claims. When the Tribunal raised this as an issue with the applicant, he responded that the Tribunal does not understand the problem they are having now. This response does not address the issue raised by the Tribunal.
The applicant was interviewed by the Department on 22 February 2013. During that interview, he stated that he undertook a 6 [month] course in Jessore prior to departing for Australia. This is inconsistent with his claims that he was in hiding at his uncle’s house from 30 August 2011 to November 2012 and raises concerns in relation to the credibility of his claims. The Tribunal put this information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act. He responded that he had nothing to say.
During the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he tried to obtain a passport but was unable to do so because there was a Police report and a case against him. He also gave contradictory evidence that he never applied for a passport. This inconsistency in his evidence raises concerns in relation to the credibility of his claims.
The applicant claimed that he was falsely implicated in the murder of a prominent journalist, the Police went to his home looking for him in 2011 and February 2012 and there was a Police report and a case against him. However, he did not leave Bangladesh until November 2012, which was 1 year and 3 months after the murder of the journalist. The Tribunal would expect that, in these circumstances, he would have made arrangements to leave Bangladesh as soon as possible. When he was asked why he delayed leaving Bangladesh, he responded that he did not get the opportunity to do so and was trying. The Tribunal has difficulty accepting this evidence in light of his evidence that many of his friends went to [Country 1] and he should have been able to join them. His delay in leaving Bangladesh raises concerns in relation to the credibility of his claims.
The fact that the applicant undertook a 6 [month] course prior to departing Bangladesh is also of concern for the Tribunal. It is indicative of someone who had a long term plan to travel to [Country 1] and live and work there or travel to [Country 1] for a short stay en route to Australia. His evidence is that he travelled from Bangladesh to [Country 1] in November 2012 enroute to Australia. His conduct is not consistent with someone who was trying to flee his country at the first available opportunity and it raises concerns in relation to the credibility of his claims.
The applicant was interviewed by the Department on 22 February 2013. During that interview, he stated that he provided false information during his entry interview on 27 December 2012. This raises issues in relation to his credibility. The Tribunal put this information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act. He responded that he cannot remember what he said at the time he came to Australia. He stated that everything is wrong. He stated that whatever he thought or told is the truth and the decision was in the Tribunal’s hands.
The Tribunal has had regard to the submissions made by the applicant’s migration agent. In those submissions, she refers to the Department’s Decision Record dated 21 August 2014 and notes that the delegate discounted the applicant’s claims for protection on the basis that his evidence was vague and lacking in detail. She referred to case law, the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and the Tribunal’s Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility and made submissions on the assessment of the applicant’s credibility. She made submissions in relation to the failure of authorities to avail protection. She referred to extensive country information and submitted that the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for reason of his political opinion and that there is a real chance that he will suffer serious harm and a real risk that he will suffer significant harm if he returns to Bangladesh. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not persuaded by these submissions.
The Tribunal has had regard to the DFAT Country Information Report on Bangladesh dated 20 October 2014 and the Department’s Policy Guidelines to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration. The Tribunal has had regard to the Tribunal’s Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility when assessing the applicant’s credibility.
Findings
Having considered all the applicant’s claims, all the evidence and the submissions, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a witness of truth. The Tribunal finds that he fabricated his material claims for the purpose of obtaining a Protection visa.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was or is a supporter or member of the BNP. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of the applicant’s claims that flow from that. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was associated with the BNP in Australia or that he has any desire to be associated with the BNP if he returns to Bangladesh.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was falsely implicated in the murder of a journalist on 29 or 30 August 2011 and that he left his home and went into hiding thereafter. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant left Bangladesh for the reasons claimed.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant applied for a passport and was unable to obtain one because of a Police report against him or a case against him. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was or is of adverse interest to the Bangladeshi authorities.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was or is of adverse interest to the AL, its supporters or members.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was unemployed in Bangladesh from 1997 to 2012. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant undertook a 6 [month] course prior to his departure from Bangladesh. The Tribunal accepts that he does not wish to return to Bangladesh because of the generalized violence there. The Tribunal accepts that he prefers to live in Australia.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm for any of the reasons claimed if he returns to Bangladesh now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that the applicant will suffer persecution on the grounds of his actual or implied political opinion or any other Refugee Convention reason if he returns to Bangladesh now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Refugee Convention reason. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
Are there substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims under complementary protection.
In view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm for any of the reasons claimed if he returns to Bangladesh now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and submissions, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will be arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out on him, he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment if he returns to Bangladesh now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Bangladesh, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
CONCLUSION

The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act and who holds a Protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Linda Symons

Member

(

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration
Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review
Procedural Fairness
Standing
Statutory Construction
Natural Justice

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

1414710 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4891

Cases Citing This Decision

Cases Cited

Statutory Material Cited

[2016] AATA 4891

20 June 2016

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Standing

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice