1417084 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3320

1417084 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3320 (12 February 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1417084

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Bangladesh

MEMBER:Fraser Syme

DATE:12 February 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 12 February 2016 at 3:22pm

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. The applicant [age] year old man from Bangladesh. According to the applicant, he was extorted and assaulted in the past by supporters of the Awami League (“AL”) because he was a businessman, member of a wealthy family and a member of the Bangladesh National Party (“BNP”).  He fears if he returns to Bangladesh he will be again be harmed by supporters of the AL or the Bangladesh authorities for those reasons and because he has knowledge of corrupt practices by the AL and because he applied for asylum in Australia.

2. The applicant applied to this Tribunal on 15 October 2014 for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration [in] September 2014 to refuse to grant him a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act (1956). The applicant included the delegate’s decision with the review application.

3. This review application raises the following issues for the Tribunal to determine:

   a.Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution in the reasonably foreseeable future if he returns to Bangladesh.

   b.Are there substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm if he is removed to Bangladesh.

   HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

4. The applicant entered Australia as an unlawful maritime arrival in March 2013. He applied to the Department of Immigration for a protection visa in June 2013. The delegate conducted an interview with the applicant in August 2014. The Tribunal has listened to a recording of that interview. The applicant provided to the department his Bangladesh character and nationality certificates, birth certificate and school records.  

5. In the decision under review, the delegate found the applicant’s claims were not credible. Therefore the delegate found the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution or a real chance of significant harm if he returned to Bangladesh.

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 12 October 2015 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Bengali and English languages.

7. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing via telephone and provided written submissions prior to the hearing. The applicant provided to the Tribunal a letter from the BNP about the applicant’s positions with that party. The Tribunal has had regard to that document and the migration agent’s submissions, which are set out where relevant in more detail below.

   RELEVANT LAW

8. 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.

9. 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).

10. 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.

11. 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’).

12. 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. DFAT have published a country assessment report for Bangladesh, which the Tribunal has had regard to.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

13. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

14. In making its findings, the Tribunal is mindful the applicant was [age] years old at the time of the hearing. The Tribunal is mindful too that whenever evidence is received in a language other than the applicant’s first language or through an interpreter there is always room for differences in meaning and nuance. The Tribunal is satisfied the standard of interpreting at the hearings was reasonable. The Tribunal considers the applicant was able to communicate effectively, understood the Tribunal proceedings and participated in a meaningful way.

15. The Tribunal finds the applicant is a national of Bangladesh. He provided a copy of his Bengali birth certificate. He made no claim to be a national of any other country. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s claims should be assessed against Bangladesh for the purposes of the Convention in s.36(2)(a) and as the receiving country for the purposes of the complementary protection obligations in s.36(2)(aa). In making the below findings, the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s home town, the place he resided prior to departing Bangladesh, to be his home region.

16. The Tribunal accepts that ‘applicants for refugee status face particular problems of proof as an applicant may not be able to support his or her statements by documentary or other proof, and cases in which an applicant can provide evidence of all his statements will be the exception rather than the rule.’  The Tribunal also accepts that ‘if the applicant's account appears credible, he should, unless there are good reasons to the contrary, be given the benefit of the doubt. (The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees' Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status). The Handbook further states:

    The benefit of the doubt should, however, only be given when all available evidence has been obtained and checked and when the examiner is satisfied as to the applicant's general credibility. The applicant's statements must be coherent and plausible, and must not run counter to generally known facts.

17. The Tribunal acknowledges, while it may have regard to the Handbook, the Handbook is not binding. The Tribunal must bear in mind that if it makes an adverse finding in relation to a material claim made by the applicant but is unable to make that finding with confidence it must proceed to assess the claim on the basis that it might possibly be true (see MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220). However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant. Further, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out, see Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437.

18. During the hearing, the Tribunal put to the applicant that his credibility was an issue. The Tribunal adjourned the hearing while the applicant and the migration agent conferred following which it received submissions as to the applicant’s credibility from the migration agent.

    Well-founded fear of persecution

19. In summary, the applicant’s claims are that supporters of AL from his village assaulted and extorted money from him. He believes this is due to one or more of the following reasons: he was a businessman; from a wealthy family, and a member of the BNP. He told the Tribunal since he left Bangladesh, the AL supporters have extorted money from his [Sibling 1]. He further fears he will be harmed if he returns to Bangladesh because he has knowledge about corruption by the AL and he applied for asylum.  

    Businessman – wealthy family

20. The applicant told the Tribunal [Sibling 1] established a [business], named [name] in 1997. The business subcontracted business from main contractors, including sometimes on government projects. He joined [Sibling 1]’s business in 2004 as a [occupation] for which he was paid a salary of BDT20-30,000. [1] The applicant then stated in 2006 he got a share in the business, which also described as becoming a partner in the business. He told the Tribunal his salary was the same after that.  The Tribunal notes in his statutory declaration accompanying his protection visa application dated June 2013 (“his statutory declaration”), the applicant states he joined [Sibling 1]’s business, [name] in around 2004. He makes no reference to being an owner in that business.

    [1] (BDT 54 = AUD 1 as at 9 February 2016) >

    Adopting the procedure in s.424AA, the Tribunal noted the applicant’s earlier evidence during his interview with the delegate was he worked in [Sibling 1]’s business and was paid a salary of BDT20-30,000. [Sibling 1] had since employed someone to replace him. The Tribunal noted too he had also described himself as self-employed in his application forms. The Tribunal explained his providing inconsistent evidence as to his role in [the business] caused it to be concerned regarding the credibility of his claims he was a businessman. The applicant elected to respond at the hearing stating he was paid a salary and then he became a partner in 2006. His earlier responses were due to the questions he was asked at that time. He may have misinterpreted the questions himself. The Tribunal noted he replied to the question regarding his employment history on the application form as ‘self-employed’, which is very different to his evidence at the hearing. He explained he was responsible for hiring labour and as his responsibilities increased, his income became higher than the other employees of [the business]. He was paid for the work he did.

21. The Tribunal queried how he became a partner of [the business]. He said it was different to the system in Australia. The Tribunal asked he just tell it what happened. He said he had to invest some money. When asked to state the figure, he avoided the Tribunal’s question twice. On the third occasion he stated he paid BDT100-150,000 depending on the number of employees. He then said it was BDT200,000. The Tribunal sought to clarify whether he was describing costs involved in engaging in a new project or his investment to become a part-owner of the business. He said the figures were for employing labour. The Tribunal reminded him it was seeking to understand how he became a partner. He replied he paid BDT200,000 to hire 50 people for 2 months to do a [job] at a [location] in 2006. He then said the BDT200,000 was rolled-over weekly. The Tribunal asked him to explain how giving that money to the labour could be rolled-over once it was paid out to the labour. He then stated he was given other money by [Sibling 1] for [other] costs. The Tribunal noted this arrangement seemed separate to his purchasing a part ownership of [Sibling 1]’s business. When asked, he said he signed no papers to become a partner. He described how [Sibling 1] would give money to him to pay the labour. The Tribunal expressed doubt he was a partner in [Sibling 1]’s business, it appeared [Sibling 1] owned the business and paid the applicant to work for him, that work included paying the labour. The applicant agreed the business was owned by [Sibling 1].

22. The migration agent submitted there was no legal basis for the business relationship between the applicant and [Sibling 1]. The applicant’s role changed in 2006 from being a worker to being equal to with [Sibling 1]. The applicant did not have to invest any funds of his own, he was given money to pay the labour from the business. The Tribunal noted the difficulty was the applicant had described his role with [the business] in different ways at different times. The migration agent submitted his answer of self-employed was consistent as was his evidence in his statement he was working with [Sibling 1]’s business given the circumstances of his having a high level of autonomy and involvement in a business owned by [Sibling 1].

23. The Tribunal is mindful there are differing legal systems in Bangladesh and Australia. However the concept of whether someone is a businessman or a paid employee is not one which is unnecessarily complicated by legalities. The evidence of the applicant at the hearing regarding his role with [the business] was vague and evasive. The Tribunal does not agree the applicant has provided consistent evidence regarding his role in [the business]. He has variously said he was an employee, a partner, self-employed and it has been submitted he was a businessman. The Tribunal considers the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence regarding his role with [the business] weigh in favour of finding the applicant was not a credible witness.

24. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant was a businessman. It finds the applicant was an employee of [Sibling 1]’s business. It accepts the applicant’s [Sibling 1] may have given more responsibility to the applicant compared to other employees, but it does not accept the applicant was a partner in or owner of [the business]. Given [it] was a business of sufficient scale that it was hiring upwards of 50 employees on its projects, the Tribunal is willing to accept as plausible the applicant’s family was one with a higher income than others and it plausible too his family was one which was relatively wealthy.  

25. The Tribunal considers further below the applicant’s claims of past harm on the basis he was employee of [the business] and/or from a wealthy family. Before doing so, it is convenient to first assess the applicant’s claims he was a member of BNP.

    BNP

26. In his statutory declaration, the applicant stated a friend introduced him to join the BNP in 2006 at a time the BNP was the ruling party. He joined to further his business interests and was appointed as [Official 1]. The Tribunal noted the applicant had also claimed most of the residents in his home village were supporters of AL.

27. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the letter he provided from the BNP about his positions with that party. It noted his previous evidence referred to him only holding a position as [Official 1]. The letter though records him serving in that and two other [positions]. When asked why he had not previously mentioned his performing any other positions he replied [Official 1] was the role he was offered when he first joined the BNP. Other roles were subsequently offered to him. His previous answers were responsive to the particular questions he was asked at that time. He had mentioned he did other duties as required. The Tribunal noted that was different to letter stating he filled other positions.  The Tribunal was concerned the letter states the applicant held other, more senior positions, but he had not raised his so holding those positions in his previous evidence. When asked to state the title of the other positions he spontaneously replied [official] and [official]. The Tribunal put to him his not previously stating he held those other positions undermined his claim he ever held any position with the BNP. The applicant replied if he did not hold those positions he could not get that letter. The Tribunal agreed and that was a reason it doubted the credibility of the letter. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant information in the DFAT country report regarding the prevalence of fraudulent documents in Bangladesh. The applicant replied the letter was a genuine document and the Tribunal could make inquiries about it. The Tribunal noted there were no contact details on the letter.

28. The Tribunal queried why supporters of AL would target the applicant for harm given it was [Sibling 1] who owned [the business], it was [Sibling 1] who was wealthy. The Tribunal noted the applicant had previously stated [Sibling 1] had no involvement with BNP. Earlier in the hearing the applicant claimed supporters of AL were now extorting [Sibling 1] too. The Tribunal queried why AL would target [Sibling 1] if [Sibling 1] was not involved in BNP. He explained in the year before the hearing, [Sibling 1] refused several times to reveal the applicant’s whereabouts, so after a few times [Sibling 1] began giving the AL supporters some money to protect his own safety. The Tribunal noted that was different to AL supporters extorting money from [Sibling 1]. The applicant then stated the AL made threats against [Sibling 1] and demanded money. He did not know what amount.

29. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant after he relocated to live with his [Sibling 2] at another village in the same district as his, he was no longer harmed by AL supporters. It noted too his earlier evidence there were only 5-6 AL supporters in his village who sought to harm him, even though most of the village residents were supporters of AL. He claimed he was living in hiding while at his [Sibling 2]’s. He stopped all association with the BNP while living with [Sibling 2] too. The Tribunal put to the applicant if he was genuinely of interest to the AL, the AL would have been able to find him living at his [Sibling 2]’s home. 

30. The applicant later claimed it was not only 5-6 AL supporters in his village who wished to harm him, rather he was at threat from all AL supporters throughout Bangladesh. Adopting the procedure is s.424AA the Tribunal put to him his evidence from the interview with the delegate that he stated there were only 5-6 AL supporters in his village who were bad and wanted to harm him. The Tribunal explained his changing his claims undermined his credibility. The applicant elected to reply at the hearing that stating it was not the case the whole of AL was against him, but what happened to him happened all over Bangladesh. The Tribunal accepts this explanation.

31. The claims the assaults and extortion by AL supporters ceased when the applicant moved 15km to live with his [Sibling 2] is inconsistent too with the applicant’s claims he was a person of interest to the AL supporters. If he was of such a high-level of interest to the AL supporters, the Tribunal considers it reasonable the AL supporters could have found him when he was only 15 km away and living with a direct relative.

1. The migration agent submitted the applicant being targeted for harm in the claimed manner was consistent with country information armed wings of AL supporters did harm BNP supporters in the period following the 2008 election. He submitted the letter from the BNP reflected the disorganised way that party operates, particularly at the village level. He first submitted the letter reflects the BNP having records the applicant held those positions albeit to the applicant’s understanding, his duties across the different positions were substantially the same - although he wore different hats. The migration agent further submitted the BNP may have listed him in three positions in order to gain funding for three people although there was actually only one position performed by the applicant. The Tribunal noted that submission was not consistent with the applicant’s evidence that he did three have three different positions.  The submission therefore was speculation on the part of migration agent.

2. The migration agent added there was no reason for the applicant to fabricate his having other positions, because doing so would undermine his earlier evidence he did only one position. The applicant approached the BNP to provide the document. Had he asked them to write he was only the [Official 1], it could be open to infer he asked the BNP to alter the contents of the letter so as to accord with his earlier claims. The Tribunal noted that submission overlooked the applicant’s evidence at the hearing he actually did hold all three positions. So there remained inconsistent evidence as to why the applicant had not mentioned holding the earlier positions prior to providing that letter to the Tribunal. The migration agent submitted the applicant was unaware he held the other two positions until he received the letter from the BNP. The Tribunal expressed doubt that was the case, as the applicant’s evidence at the hearing was he did all three positions and he did not add he was unaware of two of them until receiving the letter. The Tribunal asked the applicant again what positions he held with the BNP. He said he did whatever duties the BNP asked him to do. He repeated his earlier evidence at the hearing, listing he did all three positions.

3. The applicant has provided inconsistent evidence regarding his positions with the BNP. It does not accept the letter he provided from the BNP is a credible document. It states the applicant had three positions with that party which is inconsistent with his earlier claims he filled one position only. The Tribunal is not persuaded the applicant’s earlier evidence he did whatever duties the party required him sufficiently explains his inconsistent evidence regarding the number of positions he held. The Tribunal is not persuaded by the submissions of the migration agent the BNP fraudulent claimed the applicant as having three positions when he only had one to gain extra funding nor is it persuaded by the submission the applicant was unaware he had three positions until he received the letter. Neither of those submissions tally with the applicant’s evidence at the hearing he did all three positions. The Tribunal considers the applicant providing such inconsistent evidence about his positions weighs heavily against his claims being credible that he had any position with the BNP. The Tribunal considers the letter from the BNP is not a credible document and it finds the applicant’s willingness to provide a non-credible document in order to advance his claims further undermines his credibility. The Tribunal considers the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence regarding his positions with BNP weigh in favour of finding the applicant was not a credible witness.

4. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant was a member of BNP. 

   Past harm

5. The Tribunal is mindful of country information which indicates supporters of AL use political influence to undertake criminal activity, such as extortion. The Tribunal is mindful too of country information provided by the applicant and in the DFAT country report regarding an increase in violence between AL and BNP supporters following the 2008 election. The applicant provided generally consistent evidence regarding being assaulted and extorted by supporters of AL. However for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal has rejected the applicant was a businessman or a member of the BNP. While the Tribunal has accepted the applicant is from a wealthy family, the Tribunal is unable to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt he was assaulted and extorted for reason of being a member of a wealthy family. The Tribunal considers the applicant’s non-credible claims he was a businessman and member of the BNP undermine his credibility to such an extent that the Tribunal rejects he was assaulted or extorted at all.

6. The Tribunal rejects that the applicant was assaulted or extorted by supports of AL. It rejects since he left Bangladesh supporters of AL have come looking for him and rejects [Sibling 1] has been extorted by supporters of AL. The Tribunal rejects the applicant is a businessman or a member of BNP. While the Tribunal is mindful of the country information regarding political violence in Bangladesh, the Tribunal considers there to be only a remote or speculative chance and therefore not a real chance the applicant will face persecution for reason of his being a member of a wealthy family either from supporters of AL or the Bangladesh authorities now or in the reasonable foreseeable future if he returns to Bangladesh. 

   Asylum seeker

7. During the hearing, the applicant was unable to spontaneously refer to his claim he feared harm if he returned to Bangladesh was because he has applied for asylum in Australia. When discussing this issue, he kept referring to his claimed role with the BNP and being extorted and that he did not wish to return to Bangladesh for those reasons. The Tribunal put to him his inability to discuss the claim with it caused it to be concerned the applicant did not have any genuine subjective fear of harm on return to Bangladesh for reason he applied for asylum.

8. In the pre-hearing submissions, the migration agent quoted comments of the prime minister of Bangladesh made in May 2015 stating Bangladeshis who illegally migrated to other countries were ‘mentally sick’, ‘tarnishing the international reputation of Bangladesh’ and along with the middlemen, ‘should be punished’. The migration agent states the comments of the Bangladesh prime minister when seen in context of human rights are ground the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution. At the hearing the migration agent submitted the applicant provided the media report of the prime minister’s comments and he did have a subjective fear regarding that. He said Bangladesh was a country for which it was difficult to obtain up to date information as to whether any persons were being punished by the Bangladesh authorities.

9. The evidence before the Tribunal does not suggest any failed asylum seeker returnees to Bangladesh have been punished by the Bangladeshi authorities. The Tribunal considers there to be only a remote or speculative chance and therefore not a real chance the applicant will face persecution as a failed asylum seeker now or in the reasonably foreseeable future if he returns to Bangladesh.

   Witness to corruption

10. It was only when prompted by the Tribunal did the applicant claim he feared harm on return to Bangladesh because he had been a witness to corruption. When asked to explain that claim, he referred to his being a member of the BNP and being extorted by supporters of AL. When asked for further information, he referred to AL jailing members of BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI). The Tribunal queried how that was relevant to his having knowledge of corruption to which he replied it was due to inter-party rivalry. He then referred to torture of supporters of BNP and events from 1971 independence movement. The Tribunal asked the applicant to state what personal knowledge he had of corrupt practices. He then referred to the extortion threats AL supporters made against him.  He added he knew about share market manipulation and an incident regarding a bridge. The Tribunal noted these appeared to be events he would have learned of from news reports rather than his having any personal knowledge.

11. The Tribunal put to the applicant it appeared then he had no knowledge of any AL corruption when his personal knowledge was limited to the extortion of him. For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal rejected the applicant was extorted in the past. The Tribunal considers there to be only a remote or speculative chance and therefore not a real chance the applicant will face persecution as someone with knowledge of corruption now or in the reasonably foreseeable future if he returns to Bangladesh.

12. After assessing all the evidence and being mindful of the applicant’s personal circumstances, the Tribunal has considered the claims of the applicant individually and cumulatively. For the above reasons, the Tribunal found the applicant fabricated his claims regarding his being a businessman and a member of BNP. It rejected too he or [Sibling 1] have been harmed by supporters of AL in the past. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution from the supporters of AL or from the Bangladesh authorities for reason of his political opinion, because he is a member of a wealthy family, because he was a witness to corruption, because he applied for asylum or any Convention reason or combination of reasons, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future if he returns to Bangladesh. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the requirements of s.36(2)(a). 

13. The Tribunal considers the applicant’s claims further below in relation to complimentary protection.

    Real risk of significant harm

14. The Tribunal has also considered the application of s.36(2)(aa) to the applicant’s circumstances.  

15. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal considered there to be only a remote or speculative and therefore not a real chance that applicant will suffer any serious harm from supporters of AL or the Bangladesh authorities, if he is removed to Bangladesh. Given the real chance test for well-founded fear of persecution imposes the same standard as the real risk test of significant harm, for the same reasons set out above, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant faces a real risk of significant harm.

16. The Tribunal therefore considers there are no 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 the applicant will suffer significant harm, in the form of: arbitrary deprivation of life; the death penalty being carried out; torture; cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment, or degrading treatment or punishment.

17. Therefore the applicant does not meet the requirements of s.36(2)(aa).

    CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

    DECISION

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

    Fraser Syme
    Member