1415149 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4023

1415149 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4023 (18 June 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1415149

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Bangladesh

MEMBER:Linda Symons

DATE:18 June 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 18 June 2016 at 4:34pm

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).

2. The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Bangladesh, arrived in Australia by boat [in] March 2013. He was detained and subsequently issued with a Bridging visa [in] May 2013.

3. The applicant applied to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) for the Protection visa [in] June 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] August 2014.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 10 February 2016 to give evidence and present arguments.

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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 (DFAT) 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

11. The applicant’s claims in his application for a Protection visa lodged [in] June 2013 are summarised as follows:

    ·He was born on [date] in [his home village in] Comilla district, Bangladesh.

    ·He is a citizen of Bangladesh and a Muslim.

    ·He fears returning to Bangladesh.

    ·He left Bangladesh because of his imputed political opinion as a person who feared persecution by the Bangladesh Awami League Party (AL). He was being harassed by people who had links to the AL. They demanded that he pay them money and join or support their group.

    ·In about January 2013, a group of people who he believed were from the AL went to his shop and demanded that he pay them [amount] lakh taka in the form of a donation. When he refused to do so, he was threatened. He received several threats over the next few days including a threat to kill him.

    ·The first time that he was threatened he was also kicked and punched. On the following day, they went to his house. When he saw them he hid in his [Relative A’s] house which was [nearby]. His mother told them he was not home so they left.

    ·He then decided to go to his [Relative A’s] [house] and he hid there for a month. During that period the group of people went to his home looking for him. His [sibling] told them he did not know where he was.

    ·He found out that the group of people knew he was staying with his [Relative A]. He does not know how they found out. They told his family that they know where he is hiding and will find him. He immediately made arrangements to leave the county. His [sibling] made all the arrangements for him to leave Bangladesh.

    ·If he returns to Bangladesh he will be persecuted for not paying the money and for escaping from the group of people. The AL is one of the most powerful parties in Bangladesh and he is at risk of serious harm from them. His life will be in danger and he will not get any protection from the authorities as they are the governing party in Bangladesh. He will not be able to relocate because the AL is everywhere in Bangladesh.

12. The applicant has provided to the Department copies of his Bangladeshi Birth Certificate and a National and Character Certificate dated [in] 2013. 

13. The applicant attended an interview with the Department [in] August 2014 in relation to his application for a Protection visa. During that interview, he re-iterated and expanded on his claims. Some of his evidence was not consistent with his written claims and this is discussed further below. He made a new claim that the group of people who were harassing him were from both the AL and the Bangladesh National Party (BNP). He stated that none of his family members were involved in politics.

14. He has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated [in] September 2014.

15. At the hearing, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a letter dated [in] January 2016 from [Dr B] and a letter dated [in] February 2016 from [Mr C].

16. On 16 February 2016, the Tribunal received a letter from the applicant’s migration agent requesting an extension of seven days to provide further evidence. On 17 February 2016, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant’s migration agent and informed him that the requested extension of time had been granted.

17. On 22 February 2016, the Tribunal received a letter from the applicant’s migration agent enclosing a Statutory Declaration dated 22 February 2016 from the applicant.

    Nationality

18. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh, based on his Bangladeshi Birth 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?

19. The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that his former 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. 

20. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant his background, his family, his business, his reasons for coming to Australia and why he fears returning to Bangladesh. There were inconsistencies within his evidence as well as between his evidence to the Department and his evidence to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found his attempts to explain the inconsistencies in his evidence to be unconvincing. The Tribunal has considered the evidence given by the applicant and has concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims. The Tribunal’s concerns are noted below.

21. In his visa application, the applicant claimed that in about January 2013 a group of people went to his shop and demanded that he pay them money in the form of a donation. He claimed that when he refused to pay them the money, he was threatened, kicked and punched. He claimed that over the next few days he received several threats including a threat to kill him. He also claimed that the day after he was first threatened this group of people went to his house, he hid at his [Relative A’s] house next door, then went to another [Relative A’s] [house] and he hid there for a month before leaving Bangladesh. These claims are contradictory. If this group of people went to his house the day after they first threatened him at his shop and he had no further contact with them thereafter, he could not have received several threats over the next few days as claimed. This contradiction in his evidence raises concerns in relation to the credibility of these claims. 

22. In his visa application, the applicant claimed that in about January 2013 a group of people went to his shop and demanded that he pay them money in the form of a donation. He claimed that when he refused to pay them the money, he was threatened, kicked and punched. During his interview with the Department [in] August 2014, he initially stated that the group of people went to his shop, demanded money from him and told him that if he did not pay them they would kill him. He stated that he refused to pay them and they then left threatening him that he had a deadline by which to pay them. He was asked what the deadline was and he responded that he was not given a fixed time. He stated that they subsequently returned to the shop, beat him up and smashed his shop. He stated that they later went to his house looking for him. 

23. The delegate pointed out to the applicant that this evidence was not consistent with his claims in his visa application where he claimed that he was also kicked and punched by the group of people on the first occasion they visited him in the shop. He then changed his evidence and stated that on the first occasion he was hit with a stick and punched and kicked. He stated that he was injured and sought treatment from a doctor. When asked what injuries he suffered, he stated that he had pain in his body and the doctor gave him medicine for body aches. When asked what happened on the second occasion the group of people demanded money, he responded that four or five days later they went to his home, he was at home, they asked his mother where he was, she responded that she did not know, he saw them and took shelter at his [Relative A’s] house next door. This version of his evidence is inconsistent with his earlier evidence that they returned to his shop on the second occasion.

24. During the hearing, the applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that a group of four or five men went to his shop and demanded money from him. He stated that they told him that if he wanted to do business there he had to pay them money and support them. He stated that he responded “I do not like you as a party. You go and kill people and murder people and demand money by using force. I will not pay you money.” This reference to their party is inconsistent with his earlier evidence that he was initially unaware that they were supporters of the AL and it was only later that he found out from his [sibling] and a shop owner. This is also inconsistent with his evidence in his Statutory Declaration dated 22 February 2016, provided after the hearing, that after the first assault his [sibling] discussed the incident with a shop keeper next door who informed him that the group of men were members of the AL.

25. The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that when he refused to pay the group of men money they beat him up, ransacked his shop and closed down his business. He stated that three or four days later they returned to his shop. He stated that they tried to beat him up. He then stated that while he was getting beaten up he ran away. He stated that about a week later they went to his home looking for him. He stated that they asked his mother where he was and she said she did not know. He stated that he was at his [Relative A’s] house. He stated that he then went to another [Relative A’s] house some distance away but they found out where he was. He stated that he got scared and left Bangladesh. This version of his evidence is not consistent with his claims in his visa application or with his evidence to the Department during his interview [in] August 2014.

26. During the course of the hearing, the Tribunal raised as an issue with the applicant the many inconsistencies in his evidence and its concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims. He responded that he has been interviewed and has gone through a lot of turmoil. He stated that it is not easy to remember everything in detail. When the Tribunal noted that these were significant events that were life changing and not something he was likely to forget easily, he did not respond. 

27. The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that his application for a Protection visa was prepared by his former migration agent based on his instructions which were true and correct and that he was satisfied that his visa application was accurate. In his visa application, he stated that he was the owner of a [shop] from 2008 to 2012 and was not employed in Bangladesh thereafter. During the hearing, the Tribunal raised as an issue with the applicant the fact that the group of people could not have gone to his shop in January 2013, demanded that he pay them money, threatened him and then assaulted him if he did not have a shop in January 2013. The Tribunal noted that this raised concerns in relation to the credibility of his claims. He denied that he stated that he had the shop from 2008 to 2012. He stated that he did say he was beaten up in 2013. The Tribunal noted that during his interview with the Department [in] August 2014 he also stated that he had a shop from 2008 to 2012. He responded “I cannot say anything.”

28. Following the hearing, the Tribunal received a Statutory Declaration dated 22 February 2016 from the applicant. He stated that [in] December 2012 he closed his shop in preparation for New Year’s Eve celebrations and re-opened the shop on the morning of [date] January 2013. He stated that shortly thereafter four or five men tried to extort money from him. He stated that when he refused to pay them money, they slapped and punched him. He stated that when they left, he went to the doctor for treatment. He stated that he returned to the shop on [date] January 2013 and was again confronted by the same men. He stated that they again demanded money from him and when he refused he was slapped and punched. He stated that the men ransacked his shop again and left. He stated that he then left the shop and did not return to the shop. He stated that even though he opened the shop in 2013 he did not have the opportunity to trade and ceased operation [in] January 2013. He stated that no business transactions occurred between [late] December 2012 and [date] January 2013.

29. The Tribunal finds this response to be disingenuous. The Tribunal is of the view that there is a significant difference between closing a shop for the weekend, a public holiday or whilst the owner goes on holidays or seeks medical treatment to shutting down a business and terminating employment. Even on this version of the applicant’s evidence, he did not make the decision to cease operation of the business until [January] 2013. This does not explain why he stated in writing in his visa application that he had the store between 2008 and 2012 or why he gave oral evidence to the Department during his interview [in] August 2014 that he had the store from 2008 to 2012. This raises concerns for the Tribunal as to whether he had a shop in 2013.  

30. This response in the applicant’s Statutory Declaration dated 22 February 2016 provides a fifth version of events. His versions have varied from the group of people going to his shop once, or, alternatively, twice, or alternatively, to him receiving several treats over the next few days. There have been several variations of the time frame between each occasion. His versions have varied from him not being assaulted on the first occasion, to him being kicked and punched, to him being hit with a stick, to him being slapped and punched. There have also been different versions of when his shop was ransacked. These inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence raises further concerns in relation to the credibility of his claims.

31. During his interview with the Department [in] August 2014, the applicant stated that the group of people who demanded money from him and threaten him when he refused to pay the money belonged to the AL and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). This is inconsistent with his written statement of claims in which he states that they belonged to the AL. It is also inconsistent with his evidence to the Tribunal that they were from the AL. He also gave evidence to the Tribunal that he was a supporter of the BNP and voted for the BNP. It is therefore implausible that supporters of the BNP would be attacking and extorting money from another supporter of the BNP. His evidence is also inconsistent with the country information which states that the relationship between the AL and BNP “is characterised by entrenched animosity and hostility between two families.”[1] It is therefore highly unlikely that the supporters of these two opposing parties would be working together.

    [1] DFAT Country Information Report on Bangladesh, 20 October 2014.

32. The Tribunal raised this as an issue with the applicant and noted that it is implausible that the AL and the BNP would join forces to extort money from people. The Tribunal also raised its concerns about the credibility of this claim. The applicant responded that maybe when he was talking he did not correct himself. He stated that he wanted to say AL but BNP came out of his mouth. The Tribunal noted that the delegate then asked him several questions about this. He did not respond.

33. The Department’s Decision Record dated [in] September 2014, which the applicant has lodged with the Tribunal, indicates that the delegate referred the applicant to his claim in his visa application that the AL harassed him and noted that he made no mention of being harassed by the BNP. It indicates that the applicant responded that although the AL was the ruling party and the BNP were their opponents, they joined forces to do this to him. It indicates that he stated that he later found out from his [sibling] that that the group of people belonged to both the AL and the BNP. However, in his Statutory Declaration dated 22 February 2013, he stated that after the first incident the shop keeper in the shop next to his told his [sibling] that the extortionists were members of the AL. The implausibility of this claim and the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence raise concerns in relation to the credibility of his claims. 

34. During his interview with the Department [in] August 2014, the applicant stated that he did not belong to any political group in Bangladesh. During the hearing before the Tribunal, he stated that he was a supporter of the BNP. In his Statutory Declaration dated 22 February 2013, he stated that he voted for the BNP. This inconsistency in his evidence raises further concerns in relation to his credibility.

1. The applicant has provided the Tribunal with a letter dated [in] January 2016 from [Dr B]. The letter is written in English and does not appear to have been translated from Bengali. The applicant gave evidence that his [sibling] obtained the letter from the doctor three or four days ago. He stated that it was written in English. When asked why he did not provide the letter to the Department, he responded that the Department did not ask him for a letter. The letter states as follows:

   My name is [Dr B], state that I treated [the applicant] for [injuries] as a result by an attack by persons unknown to me.

2. During the course of the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that he sought treatment on one occasion following an assault. The Tribunal asked the applicant the name of the doctor from whom he sought treatment after he was assaulted. He responded that his name is [Dr D]. The letter provided to the Tribunal is from [Dr B]. The letter is signed “[first name]”. The Tribunal finds it implausible that a doctor would sign a certificate, on his letter head, provided for the purpose of a Tribunal hearing with his first name only. The letter does not indicate when he treated the applicant or how he treated him. When the Tribunal informed the applicant that the letter did not indicate when he received treatment, he responded that maybe he made a mistake or he did not write it. In view of these issues, particularly the letter not being issued by the doctor that the applicant claims he consulted, and the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s credibility, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this letter is authentic.

3. The applicant has provided the Tribunal with a letter dated [in] February 2016 from [Mr C]. This letter is written in English and does not appear to have been translated from Bengali. When asked about this letter, the applicant stated that he does not know whether this letter was written in English. He stated that his [sibling] obtained the letter. The letter appears to be signed “[first name]”. The letter states as follows:

   My name is [Mr C], I am a shop keeper in the [market]. I state that I was threatened by people repeatedly by the members of the ALP who demanded money from me. Unlike [the applicant] I paid. I know [the applicant] was beaten and threatened as he didn’t pay them. His shop is now closed. After speaking to his [sibling] now I know he reside in Australia.

4. [Mr C] does not indicate how and when he became aware of what happened to the applicant. In view of this issue, the country information in relation to fraudulent documents in Bangladesh, the Tribunal’s concerns about the authenticity of the other letter provided by the applicant and the Tribunal’s concerns about the applicant’s credibility and the veracity of his claims, the Tribunal has concerns about the authenticity of this letter. The country information on Bangladesh indicates that it is “very easy to get access to several types of fraudulent documents” in Bangladesh.[2] The Tribunal put this country information to the applicant and raised its concerns in relation to the authenticity of these documents. He declined to respond. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this letter is authentic.

   [2] Canada: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Bangladesh: Reports of fraudulent documents (2011-2015), 20 August 2015, BGD105263.E.

5. The Tribunal has had regard to the oral submissions made by the applicant’s migration agent at the end of the hearing. He submitted that migration agents were contracted by the government for six weeks at a time to process large numbers of asylum seekers. He submitted that visa applicants from the same country have similar claims. He stated that in preparing the visa applications the names, areas and circumstances are changed but the “general gist of the processing” is the same. He submitted that when making a claim through a third party, a claim is made on paper which is different from the initial interview and leads to an interview with the Department. He submitted that it then comes before an independent body which tries to get to the root of the matter and has concerns about inconsistencies.  

6. It is not clear from this submission whether the applicant’s migration is suggesting that the applicant’s former migration agent was overworked or negligent or careless and made a mistake. It appears that his submission is that mistakes could have been made by the applicant’s former migration agent when preparing his visa application and that this could account for the inconsistencies in his evidence. Whilst this is possible, the Tribunal has difficulty accepting this submission for several reasons. Firstly, on matters that are important  to his claims such as when he had the shop and when he was assaulted, his written evidence in his visa application has been consistent with his oral evidence to the Department and it therefore does not appear to be a mistake on the part of his former migration agent. In both instances, he stated that he had the shop from 2008 to 2012 and that he was assaulted in his shop in January 2013. The issue for the Tribunal is that these two claims are inconsistent as he could not have been assaulted in his shop in January 2013 if he did not have a shop in January 2013.

7. Secondly, even if the Tribunal were to disregard the applicant’s written claims in his visa application and only focus on his oral evidence, there were several inconsistencies within his oral evidence to the Department and between his oral evidence to the Department and his oral evidence to the Tribunal which cannot be explained as a mistake made by his former migration agent.

8. The applicant’s migration agent submitted that there is no reason for a person who is employed and has a business to flee his country. Whether the applicant was employed and had a business at the time he left Bangladesh in 2013 is one of the issues in this case and this is a finding of fact for the Tribunal to make.

9. The applicant’s migration agent made submissions to the Tribunal that were not based on any evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal informed his migration agent that his submissions needed to be based on the evidence before the Tribunal and that evidence had to be given by the applicant or a witness. For instance, he submitted that the applicant was earning a good living and left Bangladesh with the sum of $[amount]. This was not in evidence before the Tribunal. Following the hearing, the applicant filed a Statutory Declaration dated 22 February 2014 in which he stated that he believes that he was targeted because his business was successful and that he left Bangladesh with $[amount].  

10. The applicant’s migration agent submitted that the group of men who assaulted the applicant used the words “BNP” at the time of assault so it looks like it was politically motivated. The Tribunal again informed him that this was not in evidence before the Tribunal. In his Statutory Declaration dated 22 February 2014, lodged after the hearing, the applicant gave no evidence in relation to this issue. Therefore, the Tribunal rejects this submission

11. The applicant’s migration agent submitted that the applicant “looked traumatised” to him and that when people are traumatised and in fear they make errors. There is no independent expert evidence before the Tribunal in relation to the applicant’s mental state. After the hearing, the applicant’s migration agent sought an extension of time of seven days to provide further evidence. The extension of time was granted. However, no independent expert evidence in relation to the applicant’s mental state was lodged with the Tribunal. Having had the benefit of observing the applicant and interacting with him throughout the hearing, the Tribunal is satisfied that he was able to participate in the hearing in a meaningful way.

12. The applicant’s migration agent submitted that if the applicant returns to Bangladesh and does not re-establish himself there is no real chance that he will be assaulted. He submitted that if he does re-establish himself there will be a real chance of him being extorted.

13. 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.

    Findings

14. 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.

15. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was a member or supporter or associated with the BNP or any other political group or organization in Bangladesh. The Tribunal does not accept that he voted for the BNP.

16. The Tribunal accepts that none of the applicant’s family members were associated with any political party or organization in Bangladesh.

17. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant operated a shop at [a] Bazaar in Bangladesh from 2008 to 2012. The Tribunal does not accept that he opened this shop or operated this shop or closed it down or abandoned it or ceased operation in 2013. The Tribunal does not accept that he was employed and had a business at the time he left Bangladesh in 2013.

18. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was the target of extortionists who were associated with the AL or the BNP or any criminal gang in 2013. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept that he was threatened or attacked or assaulted or that his shop was ransacked by these extortionists. It also follows that the Tribunal does not accept that these extortionists went to his home looking for him and that he went into hiding with two different [Relative A’s]. It further follows that the Tribunal does not accept that these extortionists told his family that they knew where he was hiding and would find him and he thereafter made arrangements to leave Bangladesh.

19. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant earned a good living from his shop. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept that he was targeted because his business was successful. The Tribunal accepts that he left Bangladesh with the sum of $[amount] for the purpose of paying for his trip to Australia. The Tribunal does not accept that this money was from his savings.   

20. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s [sibling] was targeted by any political group or organization or any criminal gang and as a result was unable to sit his exams and had to leave Bangladesh.

21. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant left Bangladesh for the reasons claimed.

22. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is of adverse interest to the AL, BNP or any criminal gang. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is of adverse interest to the Bangladeshi authorities.  

23. The Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm if he returns to Bangladesh and seeks to establish or re-establish himself. 

24. 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. 

25. 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

26. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims under complementary protection. 

27. 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.

28. 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.    

29. 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

30. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

31. 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

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

Linda Symons

         

Member