1417045 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3374

1417045 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3374 (17 February 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1417045

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Bangladesh

MEMBER:Tania Flood

DATE:17 February 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 17 February 2016 at 9:48am

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, applied for the visa [in] July 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] September 2014.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 12 February 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Bengali and English languages.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

4. 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.

5. 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).

6. 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.

7. 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’).

8. 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.

   The issue in this case is whether there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm for a Convention reason if he returns to Bangladesh or alternatively, whether there are substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm if returned from Australia to Bangladesh.  For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   Summary of claims

9. At an entry interview conducted [in] April 2013 the applicant made the following claims:

10. After the 2008 election he was subjected to misbehaviour from Awami League supporters as his family were supporters of the BNP.  This made it difficult for him to remain in his village.  Other colleagues of his were assaulted and also had to leave the village.  He was driven out of his locality twice by opposition people carrying sticks and big knives in January 2009.

11. After the election he did not have the liberty to support his political party. 

12. In a statutory declaration made on 7 June 2013, the applicant claims the following:

13. His father served in [a government service] for [number] years but later bought a [business].  He is now retired and oversees the running of the family [business]. His mother is a homemaker and does not work.

14. He is single and has [siblings].

15. He completed [number] years of primary school and about [number] years of secondary school education.  After he left school he helped his father with his [business] and began casually working with him in 2008 [until] he left Bangladesh.

16. He worked legally in [Country 1] for a [company] for one year until the company went bankrupt and his working visa was cancelled.  He then worked illegally in [an] industry until coming to Australia.  Identity documents did not prove to be a problem for him in [Country 1] until he worked at ‘[company name]’ but his friend let him borrow his ID card and by using an alias [name] he was able to work without a problem.

17. His problems began in early 2009 when it became difficult for him to live in his city as a supporter of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

18. [In] December 2008 the opposing Awami League political party won the general election and as a result the lives of many BNP supporters were disturbed.  His father had been a member of the BNP for many years after leaving the [government service] and his uncle was also a member.

19. His friendship circle was comprised of supporters of the BNP who were known for their political activism around the community.  He first became involved with the student arm of the BNP when he finished high school and was an active member until he left Bangladesh after the 2008 election.

20. During this time he worked as [official] and whenever a meeting was organised it was his role to inform people to participate or turn up to meetings and social events.  It was widely known in the area that he was an active member of the BNP.

21. The Chatra League were known as the student arm of the Awami League and served as activists against supporters of the BNP.  After the Awami League won the election the Chatra League began targeting student BNP members and oppressing us.

22. The situation started to get very bad for him after the Chatra League declared openly that any activist of the BNP would not be allowed to stay in [village].  Twice they threatened him in public places when they caught him on the street.  They were carrying sticks and big knives and told him that if he did not leave he would be harmed.  Whenever he saw them, they were very menacing with their threats and he feared for his safety.

23. He knew the Chatra League members were very aggressive and that they usually would beat or assault whoever they targeted.  Many of his colleagues and members of the BNP party who were working with him were also assaulted and driven out of the village due to their involvement with the BNP.

24. Because of his difficulties and because he feared he would also be targeted in the same way, he left his home village and went to live with his uncle and cousin in Dhaka in January 2009.  He lived with them for a few months in order to protect himself and while he was in Dhaka he decided to make arrangements to leave Bangladesh.  His father informed him that members of the Chatra League had come to their home looking for him.  This is what encouraged him to leave Bangladesh in order to remain safe.

25. After plans were made for him to leave Bangladesh he tried to return to his village secretly under cover of night as he wanted to say goodbye to his parents as he knew they would be worried about him leaving and he wanted to see them one last time. 

26. When he got off the bus in the middle of the night in [village] his cousin informed him that members of the Chatra League were close by and that he would be in danger if he remained in the village.  Knowing it was too risky to stay there, he boarded another bus and left his home village for the last time without seeing his parents.

27. He left to work in [Country 1] in June 2009 as the Chatra League would not allow him to lead a normal life and he knew he would never be safe in Bangladesh.

28. Some of his friends who were also supporters of the BNP also suffered the same problems and had to leave Bangladesh in order to protect themselves.  Some of them made police reports in Bangladesh but the police did not protect them as they were strongly supportive of the ruling government party. 

29. Even when he was in [Country 1] he heard from his parents that members of the Chatra League continued to come to his family home and look for him.  His father informed him that they had threatened to kill him if he ever returned to Bangladesh.

30. He never felt safe in [Country 1] as he was there illegally for most of the time he was working.  He also had no support network in [Country 1] as all of his family were in Bangladesh and life was very hard.

31. His uncle, with a travel agent, made arrangements for him to get a passport and working visa in[Country 1].  He left Zia International airport legally in June 2009.

32. While in [Country 1] he heard that Australia provides assistance to refugees and someone he worked with at ‘[company name]’ put him in touch with [an] agent who made the arrangements for him to come to Australia by boat.  His father had to sell a portion of the family [business] to help pay for his place on the boat to Australia.

33. If he returns to Bangladesh he fears the supporters of the Awami League and members of the Chatra League will harm him.  He also fears he will be killed due to his political involvement as they have threatened him with death if he is ever to return.

34. He fears persecution because of his political opinion as a member of the BNP; his imputed political opinion due to his actions supporting the BNP, his longstanding friendship with BNP members and his fathers and uncles support of the BNP.

35. On 17 September 2014, following an interview with the Delegate [in] September 2014, the following additional submissions were made on the applicant’s behalf:

36. By virtue of the nature of his duties as[official], the applicant had a particularly public role, and this would have raised his general profile.  His duties of publicly inviting and recruiting people to attend BNP meetings would have clearly marked him as a BNP member within his local area.

37. The applicant believes he has a political profile substantial enough to warrant the ongoing interests of Chatra League members in his home village.  He fears he could be located by these Chatra League supporters if he relocated to Dhaka as many people from his village visit Dhaka regularly.

38. The applicant’s level of knowledge of the political environment is demonstrated by his responses at the Delegates interview.  He identified the members of the BNP coalition, as well as the recent court decision in relation to Jamaat-e-Islami.  He was able to identify and name senior members of the BNP, including Begum Zia, Mirza Abbas, Barkatullah Bulu, Moudud Ahmed and Zainul Abedin Faruk.

39. The applicant’s membership card held details of his name, residential address and position in the party.

40. Reference is made to country information which supports claims of ongoing, violent attacks on BNP members by supporters of the Awami League.

41. It is submitted that relocation within Bangladesh is not possible because his persecutors through the nature of their political affiliations are able to act with impunity and are implicitly supported by the Bangladesh authorities.  Further the reasonableness of him relocating to Dhaka is questionable given his low level of education and low level of job training and formal work experience.  Relocation means he would be removed from his family and likely to suffer serious economic and social hardship.

    Country of Reference

42. The applicant has produced a copy of a birth certificate from the People’s Republic of Bangladesh which confirms his claimed name, date of birth and citizenship.  Further, he has been consistent with his identity and birth details since his arrival in Australia and at the Protection visa interview with the Delegate and before the Tribunal the applicant spoke in the Bengali language which is the principle language spoken in Bangladesh.  The applicant stated at hearing that he does not have citizenship of any other country or the right to enter and reside in any other country.  In the absence of any information to the contrary the Tribunal accepts that Bangladesh is the applicant’s country of nationality for the purposes of the Convention and also the receiving country for the purposes s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

43. Central to the applicant’s claims is that he was an active member and supporter of the BNP, having first become involved with the student arm of the BNP and later assuming a communications role within the local branch of the BNP.   During the hearing the Tribunal explored the applicant’s history of involvement in political affairs, including his knowledge of the BNP and its student arm, and his level of involvement in party activities.

44. The applicant confirmed that his father, uncle and cousin all supported the BNP but that his brothers were not of an age to be involved.  When asked about their level of involvement in the BNP, the applicant confirmed his other family members were just supporters of the organisation and were not involved in any political activities.

45. When asked whether his family have encountered any problems from Awami League members and supporters due to their political opinion he said they have not but that sometimes Awami League people go to his house looking for him.  When asked why they would continue to have an interest in him some six years after he left Bangladesh he said that in previous years when the BNP was in power, BNP members and supporters, including himself, would beat their opponents and they are still seeking revenge for this.  The Tribunal put it to the applicant he has never mentioned this fact before and he replied that he only ever answered the questions which were put to him by the Department and that he was told not to say otherwise. 

46. The applicant stated at hearing that he was a member of the BNP.  When asked how he qualified for membership the applicant said it was on the basis of his support for the organisation.  He confirmed he held a membership card but does not have it with him in Australia.  The Tribunal put it to the applicant that in order to have been issued with a membership card he would have to have formally become a member.  When asked again to outline the process of obtaining membership the applicant again indicated he was simply added as a member.  The Tribunal pointed out that the BNP’s Constitution[1] outlines the process for qualification for membership which entails declaring adherence to the party’s proclamation, constitution and programmes; completing an application form; producing identification; paying a subscription fee whereupon his details would be preserved on the list of members of the party.  The applicant then agreed that it is common to comply with these steps.  When asked to comment on why he had not mentioned doing so himself, the applicant made no further comment. 

    [1] Bangladesh Nationalist Party – BNP Constitution (amended up to 8 December 2009)

47. The Tribunal questioned the applicant about his involvement with the student arm of the party and how he came to be involved at a point in time when he had completed his studies, noting that members of the student arm are generally students.  The applicant stated that at the time he was technically still a student; having failed his year [level] exams he said he was eligible to continue studying.  When asked what motivated him to join the student arm he only spoke in very general terms about having “good feelings” for the party and “loving” their activities.

48. The applicant was able to correctly name the student arm of the BNP and said it was founded by Ziaur Rahman, which in the Tribunal’s view could be assumed from a historical perspective.    The applicant had no knowledge of when the student arm was founded and couldn’t even attempt to describe the student arm’s party symbol.   The applicant was asked whether he has followed the affairs of the student arm since departing Bangladesh and he said that he doesn’t have any eagerness towards the BNP since leaving.  He said he used to be a supporter of the BNP and indeed still supports the BNP although his level of support has fallen. 

49. The applicant was asked about his knowledge of the BNP broadly and he spoke about his respect for Ziaur Rahman and the country’s path to independence.  He incorrectly stated that the BNP was founded in 1972, rather than 1978, could not remember what the four main principles of the party are and was unable to expand on any party policy.  The Tribunal also found it significant that he was also unable to explain a fundamental difference between the Awami League and BNP, that being their respective stances on the role of religion in society.  The applicant offered no comment when the Tribunal pointed out that the Awami League adopt a secular approach to religion whereas the BNP believes that Islam is integral to life and favours Islamic principles.[2] Further, the applicant was unable to accurately describe the BNP party flag and wasn’t aware what the colours of the flag represent. 

    [2] Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) website: >

    When asked if he has had any involvement with the BNP in Australia the applicant indicated that he had visited them twice, once about seven or eight months ago, and once about two or three months ago.  When asked why he did this he said that it was just to see what was happening and to discuss the present situation with them.  Other than that he confirmed he has not been involved in any of the BNP’s activities in Australia claiming that it wasn’t possible to do anything about the political situation in Bangladesh from Australia.  The Tribunal replied that the BNP in Australia appear to have a program of events and actively campaign for political reform.[3] 

    [3] BNP Australia Community, Facebook page.

50. Regarding his involvement in BNP activities in Bangladesh, the applicant stated that from around 2005 or 2006 his role was to notify people of upcoming meetings and processions.  He said that he did this when required which was irregular – sometimes once a month sometimes more, sometimes less.  He said that he did this either by telephoning people or going door to door.  The applicant said that sometimes up to three or four hundred people would attend the gatherings and the Tribunal questioned how he could inform such large numbers of people in the manner described.  He then said that they sometimes made announcements over the microphone and that he personally did this too.  When the Tribunal queried why he had not mentioned this activity before he again said that he only answered questions put directly to him. 

1. When asked if he had any other involvement in political activities he stated that he also attended strikes and processions which were called in opposition to the Awami League government.  When asked if any particular issue stood out for him he could only provide a general response that the strikes occurred because his party was being oppressed. 

2. At hearing the Tribunal put it to the applicant, pursuant to the requirements at s424(aa) of the Act, that during his entry interview he said he never participated in any protests against the government.  The Tribunal explained that this information is relevant because it contradicts the evidence given to the Delegate and to the Tribunal that he did attend such protests.  The Tribunal explained that if it relied on this information it might find his evidence is not credible which might lead to the decision being affirmed.  The Tribunal invited the applicant to respond to or comment on this information and asked the applicant whether he required more time to do so.  The applicant indicated that he would like to respond immediately.  He said that whenever the other party did bad things the BNP would always respond and there would be strong clashes.  He said that when he first entered Australia he was fearful and thought that by admitting to being involved in anti-government protests he might be sent back to Bangladesh.

3. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant might favour the BNP over the opposition parties based on his father and uncles support for the organisation.  However, in view of his oral evidence, and together with the fact the applicant has produced no evidence of his membership of the party, such as a copy of his membership card or supporting statements from the BNP, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant took out membership of the BNP as claimed. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has falsely claimed to have been a member of the BNP.

4. In considering his answers to questions raised in relation to his knowledge of the BNP and its student wing, Chatra Dal, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has demonstrated the level of knowledge which could be expected from a person who claims to have actively performed a communications role in the party for three to four years.  The Tribunal considers the applicant would have been able to articulate basic policy positions adopted by the party and to have explained in greater detail the themes of the meetings, protest rallies and processions he advertised and attended over the course of several years.  The Tribunal has weighed the applicant’s claim that he was afraid to mention his involvement in political protests during his entry interview against his evidence overall.   The Tribunal considers the applicant’s low level of knowledge of the BNP together with his relative lack of interest in following the BNP’s political activities since departing Bangladesh also contributes to the Tribunal’s conclusion the applicant was not an office holder or active supporter or member of the BNP in Bangladesh.

5. When asked about the claimed harm he had encountered in Bangladesh the applicant related two events he previously outlined to the Delegate.  Namely that a group of Awami League supporters came to his home to attack him in the days after they took power in 2008 but that he managed to escape unharmed.   Secondly, when he attempted to return home to his village to see his parents before departing Bangladesh in 2009 he was informed immediately on arrival that a group of Awami League supporters were waiting to attack him and he therefore departed the village without seeing his family.  The applicant confirmed that apart from these two incidents there were no further attempted attacks upon him.

6. Regarding the second incident involving his return to the village, the Tribunal asked the applicant how his attackers were aware of his return given he claims to only have informed his family that he was coming.  The applicant stated that the Awami League supporters kept a constant watch on his home and therefore they knew he was returning.  The Tribunal was not persuaded by this response and indicated that this wouldn’t account for how they knew the precise date and time of his arrival by bus. 

7. While the Tribunal notes the detail of these accounts is generally consistent with what he told the Delegate, the nature of the claimed harm differs significantly to the account provided in his written claims.  That is, he was twice attacked in public places when encountered by Awami League supporters.  The Tribunal pointed out that being attacked in his home was totally different to being attacked in a public place.  When asked to account for why he did not mention being attacked at his home in his written claims the applicant insisted the first attack occurred at his home.  Noting that his home is not a public place, the applicant stated that the second attack occurred in a public place.

8. The Tribunal questioned the rationale of the applicant returning to his village given he claims to have been so threatened that he had determined the need to depart the country altogether.  The Tribunal acknowledged it was not unusual to want to see his parents before leaving the country but questioned why they could not have travelled to see him in Dhaka given the circumstances.  He said that he was worried that his parents would lead his attackers to him.

9. The applicant claims that after he was forced to leave his village he went to live with his uncle and cousin in Dhaka in January 2009.  He said that the Awami League supporters gathered information about him and came to know he was living in Dhaka.  When asked how he knew this the applicant said that he saw them in a shopping mall near where he was living.  The Tribunal indicated that they could have been there to shop or for another reason and indicated that it nevertheless appears coincidental that they happened to appear at a shopping centre near to where he was living given the size and density of population of Dhaka.  The applicant insisted that the Awami League knew about his whereabouts but provided no persuasive explanation as to how this was the case.  After seeing the people in the shopping centre the applicant claims he went to Chittagong for several days prior to his departure from Bangladesh. 

10. The Tribunal questioned why the applicant had stayed in Dhaka for five to six months if he was so certain the Awami League people from his village knew where he was.  He said it was because it took some time to organise his visa to[Country 1].  When asked what he did during those months the applicant said he was not involved in any political activity as he was in hiding in a safe place.  The Tribunal stated that it did not appear he was in hiding given he was openly moving about the neighbourhood, visiting the shopping mall and travelling by public transport back to his village. 

11. In view of the Tribunal’s earlier finding that the applicant was not an office holder or active supporter or member of the BNP, the Tribunal is not persuaded he held a profile that would attract the adverse attention he claims by Awami League supporters or members.  The Tribunal considers the inconsistency in the detail of the claimed attacks also raises doubts about the truthfulness of the applicant’s claims as does his claim to have voluntarily returned to the location in which he feared he would be harmed.   The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims that he was involved in any beatings of Awami League supporters during the BNP’s reign in power and was therefore vulnerable to retribution attacks as he never mentioned this significant fact prior to the Tribunal’s hearing in any of his evidence.   The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s submissions that he restricted his prior evidence to answers to direct questions but is not persuaded by this response.  The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was harmed or threatened in any way by members or supporters of the Awami League due to his political opinion or activities.  

12. In view of the credibility concerns arising from the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal is also not satisfied that the applicant’s friendship circle was comprised of other BNP activists.  The Tribunal considers the applicant has displayed little knowledge of, or commitment to, the BNP such that his friendship circle would be heavily weighted toward other political activists.  As such the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has anything to fear on return to Bangladesh for reason of being associated with people known for their BNP political activism.

13. The applicant advised that he lived in [Country 1] for approximately three and a half years before coming to Australia, having obtained a passport and visa through a travel agency.  Further he stated that for the first year he was living and working legally in [Country 1] on a working visa.  He said that the passport was genuine and that he encountered no difficulties departing the country.

14. When asked why he did not seek protection in [Country 1] he said that when he left his first job he was living illegally in the country and that when persons living illegally in the country are captured they are sent to jail.  The Tribunal pointed out that he was living in [Country 1] legally for a year before his visa became invalid and that he had plenty of time to claim protection but did not.  The Tribunal suggested that this could imply he did not leave Bangladesh out of fear.  In response, the applicant stated that he did not know that his company would shut down after only one year.

15. The applicant claims to have fled Bangladesh in fear for his life.  The fact that he had ample time to apply for protection in [Country 1] as the holder of a valid working visa but did not, persuades the Tribunal that he did not leave Bangladesh for the reasons claimed.  The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant moved to [Country 1] for employment and when the circumstances of that employment changed he arranged to travel to Australia where he was informed he could apply for protection. 

16. The Tribunal finds the applicant has suffered no previous harm on account of his political opinions or activities.  Further, he has taken relatively little interest in the BNP’s affairs since coming to Australia and based on his oral evidence his level of interest and commitment for continuing to support the BNP has also waned.  The Tribunal considers the applicant’s interaction with BNP Australia on two occasions was undertaken casually and has not resulted in him becoming active in their political program.  The Tribunal does not consider the applicant’s meetings with BNP Australia, taken alone or together with his support for the BNP before coming to Australia creates a real chance of him being seriously harmed on return to Bangladesh.

17. During the hearing the Tribunal put it to the applicant that the Delegates decision record indicates that he previously conceded that merely being a supporter of the BNP would not lead to serious harm.  The Tribunal indicated that this position is supported by country information[4] which indicates that while the political environment remains volatile in Bangladesh with ongoing reports of politically motivated violence between opposing parties and their supporters the information suggests that those most at risk of harm are political leaders and higher level activists.  The Tribunal put it to the applicant that it was not persuaded he held such a profile.  The applicant responded that the leaders formulate plans and strategies which are left to the lower ranks to implement which therefore places activists like him at risk.   As noted, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant was an active member or supporter of the BNP or that he has a profile such that there is a real chance he would be seriously harmed on return to Bangladesh for reason of his political opinion. 

    [4] DFAT Country Report, Bangladesh, 20 October 2014; UK Home Office, Country Information and Guidance, Bangladesh: Opposition to the Government, February 2015

18. For the above reasons, having considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal does not accept there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm if he returns to Bangladesh, now or in the foreseeable future, for reason of his political opinion or for any other reason.  The Tribunal finds the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution.  Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.

19. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered the alternative complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.    For the same reasons already articulated, 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 he will be significantly harmed for the reasons claimed or any other reason. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

20. 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 (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

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

    Tania Flood
    Member