1415561 (Refugee)

This decision concerns an application for a Protection visa made by an individual claiming to be a citizen of Bangladesh. The applicant alleged that he was forced to leave Bangladesh due to threats and attacks from members of the Awami League (AL) party, stemming from his alleged support for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and his family's status as refugees from [Country 1]. The dispute before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Refugee Convention reason or faced a real risk of significant harm under complementary protection provisions, thereby satisfying the criteria for a Protection visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding his political affiliation, the specific incidents of threats and violence he alleged, and the reasons for his family's alleged targeting. Key legal issues included assessing whether the applicant's fear of harm was objectively reasonable and whether any potential harm would be on account of a Convention reason, such as political opinion or race. The Tribunal also had to consider the relevance and weight of country information, including Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) reports and departmental policy guidelines, in assessing the applicant's claims.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found the applicant to be not a witness of truth, concluding that he had fabricated material claims. This finding was based on numerous inconsistencies and implausibilities in his evidence. For instance, the Tribunal noted the applicant's poor knowledge of the BNP, including its flag, which was inconsistent with his claim of being an active supporter. Furthermore, the Tribunal found it implausible that perpetrators of alleged extortion would leave without taking goods, that the applicant's father would report incidents to the police given the alleged corruption and inaction, and that explosive devices would cause no damage to a brick house. The Tribunal also found the applicant's shifting accounts regarding the police response and the nature of the threats to his family to be indicative of fabrication. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that there was no real chance the applicant would suffer serious harm for any Convention reason or significant harm under complementary protection provisions if returned to Bangladesh.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.