1419106 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 3609

1419106 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 3609 (22 March 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1419106

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Bangladesh

MEMBER:Frances Simmons

DATE:22 March 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 22 March 2016 at 4:05pm

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 in this case is a young man from Bangladesh of the Bengali ethnicity and the Sunni Muslim faith. Although he has not submitted any original identity documents for the purpose of this review, I accept that he is a citizen of Bangladesh and his identity is as claimed. He was born on [date] in [his home] village in Bangladesh and this is where he lived until 2008 when he left Bangladesh and travelled to [Country 1].  After working in [Country 1] for around five years, in January 2013 he returned to Bangladesh before travelling back to [Country 1] in February 2013.  From [Country 1] he travelled to [Country 2] where he boarded a boat to Australia. He arrived at [Australia] [in] May 2013.

2. The applicant applied for a protection visa [in] September 2013. In the statutory declaration that accompanied his application, he claims that he was a supporter of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (‘BNP’). He claimed he first became involved with the BNP when he was at High School when he became the [Official 1] of the student BNP group.  He claims that at this time he was repeatedly threatened by members and supporters of the Awami league. In 2005 he attended [College 1] where he was also involved in BNP student group. He claims that in 2007 he was attacked, beaten and stabbed in the [leg] by a group of men from the Awami league who told him if he did not abandon the BNP they would kill him. The applicant claims he fled to [Country 1] where he remained for five years.

3. In January 2013 the applicant returned to Bangladesh and opened a [store]. He claims that [later in] January 2013 a large group of men came into his [store] and demanded that he pay them [amount] takka. He told them that he did not have this kind of money. They stated that if he did not pay them by [in] February 2013 he would be killed. He claims he was targeted by these extortionists due to his involvement in the BNP. He claimed that [in] February 2013 a group of men entered his shop and beat him with a stick. He managed to escape through the back of the shop however they damaged the shop and broke the windows. He claims that he told his parents about the incident and then went to stay with his [relative]. The applicant then made arrangements to travel to Australia.

4. The delegate of the Minister of Immigration did not find the applicant’s claims were credible and refused to grant the applicant a protection visa [in] November 2014.  The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 4 March 2016 and gave evidence with the assistance of an interpreter in the Bengali and English languages. The issues in this case are whether there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm on return to Bangladesh for a Convention reason or whether 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 subject to significant harm.

   RELEVANT LAW

5. 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

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.

9. There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.

10. Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.

11. Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.

12. Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.

13. Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.

14. In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.

15. Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.

    Complementary protection criterion

16. 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’).

17. ‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s.36(2A): s.5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.

18. There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.

    Section 499 Ministerial Direction

19. 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. I have had regard to the DFAT Country Report Bangladesh dated 20 October 2014 to extent that it is relevant to the assessment of the applicant’s claims.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

    Evidence provided to the Department

20. In an entry interview that occurred [in] July 2013 the applicant provided information about his identity and family composition. He indicated he did have a passport but it was in Bangladesh. When asked why he left Bangladesh he said ‘because of unstable condition of politics and to save myself from the terror of extortionists (forced political donations’) who asked for money. When he was asked whether anything happened that made him leave, he said he was in [Country 1] for four years and he made a lot of money so he planned to start a shop when he returned to Bangladesh. However,’ money collectors’ or ‘donation collectors’ threatened him and demanded [amount] lakh, that is [amount] Bangladeshi takka, or they will kill him. He said he was targeted by ‘some of the political parties and terrorist groups’. Asked when this happened, he said he went back to Bangladesh [in] January and then they started harassing him. Asked whether there was any other reason he left his country, he said on top of that they threatened to kill him and he was afraid to go to the mosque for prayers. Asked whether there was any other reason, he said no.

21. When asked what he thought would happen to him if he returned to Bangladesh the applicant said ‘if I go back to Bangladesh those people who are spreading terror will kill me, better you kill me here’. He said all his family are members of, and involved with, the BNP.  When asked whether there were any armed groups, political groups of religious groups operating in the area he was from, he said ‘there are terrorist groups scattered everywhere and no basic group there’. Asked about the nature/level of his involvement with them, the applicant said he was not involved but his brother was involved in groups and they came to know he came from overseas and he had money and they started harassing him.

22. In a statement of claims prepared with the assistance of a registered migration agent the applicant claims that life in Bangladesh is ‘hard and dangerous’ and, for him, this was ‘because of the political situation’. His statement continues:

    While I was [at] high school I was involved with the student’s BNP groups and in 2005 I became their [Official 1]. Once that happened I had to keep a low profile because I had become a target. During this period I was repeatedly threatened by members and supporters of the Awami league.

    [I] attended [College 1] and was also involved in the student BNP group there.

    In 2007 after I finished a meeting I was on my way home and I was approached on the road by a group of men from the Awami league. They told me that they had threatened me may times to stop my involvement with the BNP and I had not listened to their demand. They beat me and stabbed my [leg]. They said if I don’t abandon the BNP they will kill me.

    After this incident I went home and decided with my family that it was too dangerous for me to stay in Bangladesh. I stopped going to college and did not finish my course.

    I began to work as [an occupation] while my parent tried to organise a passport and a visa for me to leave the country. In 2008 I went to [Country 1].

    I lived and worked in [Country 1] until January 2013. I returned to Bangladesh because I thought that since some time had past, members of the Awami league would have either forgotten me or would not care about harming me …I returned to Bangladesh [in] January 2013. I immediately set up a [business] with the money I had earned in [Country 1].

    [In] January 2013, a large group of men came to my [store] and asked for [amount] taka. I told them I could not afford the money they were after/ They told me that I had to pay them on [a date in] February 2013. They said that if I did not pay by that date they would kill me. They targeted me because of my involvement with the BNP.

    I did not open my shop on [that date in] February 2013. The other shop owners told me that no one had come to my store that day. I decided that it was safe to open the business the next day.

    On [the next day in] February 2013 while I was at work a group of men entered by shop and began to beat me with a stick but I managed to escape through the back of the shop. They damaged my shop and broke the windows.

    I escaped to my home and told my parents about the incident and warned them that these men might come looking for me. I went to stay with my [relative] at [their] house. I stayed with my [relative] for 3 or 4 days. I had to leave because the people would like search for me at the homes of my relatives. I left and stayed with a friend.

    I knew I couldn’t stay in Bangladesh anymore. I needed to leave the country to saving my life … In that time my [relatives] made arrangement with a smuggler for [my] …departure from the country.

    With the help of a smuggler I left Bangladesh [in] February 2013 … I fear I would be killed if I return to Bangladesh by terrorist and political groups.

23. [In] September 2014 the applicant was interviewed by a delegate of Minister. Having listened to the interview, I accept the references to the applicant’s evidence in the delegate’s decision record are accurate. During the interview, the applicant told the delegate that his parents are still living in the village where he grew up. Questioned about his family’s involvement with the BNP, he told the delegate that his family, particularly his brother and father, were strong supporters of the BNP. His brother and father were still involved in the BNP. Asked what he saw of their involvement, he said they were involved in a lot of political activities. Asked whether his father or brothers ever held any leadership positions, he said his brother was ‘almost like a leader’. After initially stating his brother and father were still involved in the BNP, he then stated they could not do political activities and everything had come to a stop.  

24. The applicant first joined the youth wing of the BNP around [year] at high school because he followed the same political views as his parents; he did what his parents did. He stated that he ‘used to organise meetings with students in the locality, meetings to keep the locality away from all kinds of bad things’. He knew that the BNP was found on 1 January 1979 by President Ziaur Rahman and that the current leader of the BNP is Khaleda Zia. He said he was involved with the BNP in college. Asked to provide information about the BNP’s policy objectives, he said ‘to secure people’s safety, to be friendly with neighbours and friends and people in general. To establish social justice and to take care of basic rights’

25. The applicant said that when he was at college he was elected to the position of [Official 2] of [District 1] of the BNP in 2005.  He told the delegate that at the time he was involved in an incident involving an attack from members of the Awami league. When he was coming home from a meeting he was ‘roughed up’ by 14 or 15 people and they ‘cut off a portion from my [leg]’. He stated that after that he could not go to college he just stayed home and did chores. He was asked to clarify when this incident occurred as he had stated it happened in 2007 but now he was saying it happened in 2005. He said he was beaten up badly in 2005, 2006 and then towards the end of 2007 they cut his leg.

26. The applicant claimed he moved to [Country 1] in October 2008 because he had become deeply involved in the BNP and the situation had grown too dangerous. Asked how his political involvement had deepened, he said  ‘at that time, when they cut a part of my leg off, I couldn’t even go to Mosque and pray … Awami league extremely bad extortion. Things had become really bad and my parents decided I should leave’. Asked whether he had considered moving to another part of Bangladesh, he stated he was a leader and his picture was on various posters. Asked if he had any copies of these posters to provide, he stated that the people smuggler wouldn’t let him bring them. The applicant was asked if he could organise for copies to be scanned and emailed, he stated that he did not bring these documents but that he was the [Official 2] of the [District 1] union and [Official 1]. He stated that he has a certificate of having held this position.

27. The applicant was asked whether it was possible that his primary motivation for moving to [Country 1] was economic. He stated that he went there for political reasons. He stated he had a working visa in [Country 1] and he did not apply for any other type of visa. He told the delegate he maintained his political relationships by telephone when he was in [Country 1].

28. The applicant told the delegate [in] January 2013 a group of around fifteen to twenty men entered his shop and demanded [amount] takka. Asked about who these men were, he stated that they were ‘lawless people’. Asked if he could recognise them, he said he knew their faces because he ‘saw them doing terrorism in different places … they were involved in murder, stealing people’s things’. He stated he had seen them wearing masks ‘going about doing those things’. Asked if these men were wearing the masks when they entered his shop and he said that was the case and he could not recognise them. He was asked what the men said when they entered the shop. He stated that they knew he was a member of the BNP and that members of his family were involved with the BNP.  Asked why he thought a group of individuals such as these would invest time and money pursuing him for money which he could not pay, he said they knew he was a member of the BNP, and they thought he had earned a significant amount of money while in [Country 1].

1. In post interview submissions the applicant’s former representatives argued that there is an ongoing risk of harm for even low level activists in the BNP student wing of Bangladesh. This harm comes from multiple persecutors including political opposition and members of the police and other law enforcement agencies. The applicant perceived that his attackers were acting with impunity because they were members of the Awami League who are part of the ruling government. It was also submitted that the applicant is unable to relocate to another part of Bangladesh due to his lack of education and training, and his family responsibilities and relationships. As political violence is widespread in Bangladesh he will be targeted wherever he goes.

2. [In] December 2014, the delegate rejected the applicant’s application for a protection visa. The delegate found that the applicant had not told the truth about the reasons he left Bangladesh in 2008 or his experiences in Bangladesh in 2013. The delegate accepted that the applicant is from [his home village] village in Bangladesh and that his family continues to reside in the same home he grew up. The delegate did not accept that the applicant or his family had a history of deep involvement with the BNP and noted that his family remained living in the same location. The delegate did not accept that the applicant was involved in the BNP at high school or at college or that he was the victim of several attacks from the Awami league.

3. The delegate did not consider the applicant’s basic knowledge of the BNP was commensurate with his claim that he was once a leader of the district and found it significant that he had not produced any documentation supporting this claim.  The delegate did not accept that he was ever a person of interest to the Awami League. The delegate found the applicant presented this set of claims in an embellished scripted manner and that his initial statement that he recognised these individuals by face was inconsistent with his later statement that these men were masked and he did not recognise them.

   Summary of evidence at the tribunal hearing

4. At the outset of the hearing the applicant confirmed that all the information he has provided with his protection visa application was true and correct to the best of his knowledge. When asked if there were any corrections or additions he wanted to make, he said no. The hearing took just under two and half hours.

5. During the hearing the applicant confirmed details about his background and his family composition. He told the Tribunal in the days before he left Bangladesh he was ‘hiding’ at his [relative’s] place and a friend’s place in a neighbouring village, three or four kilometres away from [his home] village. He advised his family – his mother, father, [and siblings] are still living in his home village. His [relative] live with their in-laws. Between 2008 and 2013 he lived in [Country 1]. He returned to Bangladesh from [Country 1] [in] January 2013 and [in] February 2013 he departed Bangladesh. When he travelled back to Bangladesh from [Country 1] he used a genuine Bangladeshi passport issued in his own name which he acquired before he travelled [Country 1] in 2008. He told the tribunal the agent took this passport from him in [Country 2] when they took all his documents and money.

6. When asked why he went back to Bangladesh in 2013, the applicant said he earned some money and he thought he would set up a [shop] but the situation was such he had to run for his life because he faced constant demands for money and they threatened his life. When asked why he decided to leave Bangladesh in 2013, he said in 2013 he had a shop but the workers and leaders of the political party kept demanding for money, their demands increased and then they beat him up. He tried to run and hide in [relative’s] place. He was running around and hiding in different places. He also hid at his friend’s place. He was threatened so much and he was exhausted going from one place to another. His [relatives] suggested he could travel and save his life. The applicant advised he was targeted by the Awami league and also from an extremist group that extort money from people. I asked whether that extremist group had a name and he said it did not but their whole operation involved demanding money. Asked to clarify whether this group was connected with the Awami league, he said they used to work together. He told the Tribunal it took fifteen to twenty days to arrange to leave Bangladesh – the smuggler was quite fast.

7. When asked who would harm him if he return to Bangladesh now, the applicant said if he returned now it would be fatal – from the look of the country it has become more intense – the threats and the extortion. I noted I was aware the political situation was volatile and sometimes violent. I advised the applicant I needed to consider his particular situation and asked why anyone would target him.  The applicant told the Tribunal in 2005 he joined a political group called [District 1] union (the Chhatra Dal or youth wing of the BNP) and he was working as a [Official 1] of that union. Over time his popularity increased and when that happened the Awami league asked him to quit that party to join the Awami league.

8. I asked whether there were any other reasons that he was afraid of returning to Bangladesh. He gave evidence that after five years he returned to his country but the Awami League members did not forgot him and they threatened him and tried to extort money from him.

9. I asked the applicant when he first became involved in the BNP. The applicant said in [year] he completed HSC and in 2005 he joined the Chhatra Dal union. He gave evidence in 2005 he was studying an undergraduate course in [subject] at [College 1], which is ten to fifteen miles from his home village.  I asked what involvement the applicant had in the BNP in high school before he got to college. He said was in High School and he saw his parents were interested and followed the party and he got interested; their focus was very good and he liked the policies. Asked which policies he liked, he asked whether I was asking about the general policies or the ones he worked for at the Chhatra Dal. I advised the applicant I wanted to know about the policies he liked at high school. He said he used to like the polices from the Chhatra Dal. Asked what policies he liked, he said financial development, democracy, equal rights and equal opportunity, one nation, social justice and equality, full confidence in Allah.

10. I asked about his involvement with the BNP student group at college. The applicant told the Tribunal he was associated with the Chhatra Dal and when he was at college there were numerous times when the Awami league guys would come and confront him – there were marks where they hit him – he was injured in the [leg]. They told him they had always warned him numerous times to leave the party he was doing work for so next time he could be sure his life was at risk. I noted he had previously said that when he was in a student in a BNP group at college he had particular position. I asked what that position was. He said he was [details deleted], he was [an official 2], he worked for the demonstrations and to distribute the [leaflets]. I asked if he had a particular title for the position he held and he said he worked as [an official 2]. Asked what was the name of the area he worked in, he said the precinct was [College 1] and there were different groups working within the college. I asked what group he was working for. The applicant said he was in Chhatra Dal and he was working in [a] faction and his study was to do with [subject].

11. I asked the applicant when the BNP was last in power. He said in 1979, 1991, and 2001; the BNP has come into power three times. Asked when the BNP lost power after winning power in 2001, he said after 2006 they lost power and they didn’t return. He then referred to the fact that there was a caretaker government before the Awami league came to power.  I noted he was not in Bangladesh at the time and asked what the BNP did in 2014 elections.  He said he was outside the country but as a party the BNP was in a very bad state. I asked why. He gave evidence that the situation had deteriorated -- the leaders and the base level leaders were facing atrocities and being falsely accused and arbitrarily taken into jail and there was no news about these people.

12. I asked what the BNP did in the general elections in 2014. He said he was outside the country so he could not give an articulate report on the situation of the BNP. I asked if he knew how the BNP did in January 2014 elections. He said he could not remember accurately. I asked if he followed how the BNP was going now he was not in Bangladesh. He said yes, he did through the internet. He said permanent committee members are being put in jail or restrained. They are not operating openly because of false cases and four or five people have faced death sentences. I put to the applicant that if he was genuinely interested in the BNP he might have known that the BNP boycotted the general elections in 2014.The applicant said at that point there was no voice from BNP and the Awami league made the public see that there was no one else as an alternative – it was a set up; that’s how they came into power.

13. I asked the applicant to describe the BNP flag. He said the colour of the flag is blue and there is a president on it. I asked if he was describing the BNP flag.  He then said the colour is blue and there is a round circle and a sheaf of rice and the colour of the rice. I noted we were talking about the party flag and he said the colour is blue. I asked whether there were any other colours. He said no. I showed the applicant an image of the BNP flag, noting that while it had a golden sheaf it was green and red, not blue. I said it was difficult to accept he was involved in the BNP if he couldn’t describe the flag of the party. He said the national emblem has a blue colour – when I spoke about describing the flag he didn’t get it. I said this flag was displayed in processions and rallies and it was hard to accept he was ever involved in the BNP if he couldn’t describe the flag of the party. The applicant said didn’t understand the question. I said I was looking online for any flag that was connected to the youth wing of the BNP that was blue and I couldn’t find anything. There was nothing he wanted to say.

14. I asked what involvement his family members had in the BNP. He replied that they used to just support the party.  During the election time they used to vote for BNP. I asked whether they supported the party in any other way. He said his Dad was just working as [an occupation]. I said he didn’t sound like they had any active involvement in the BNP other than voting for the BNP at election time. I asked whether that was an accurate summary of his evidence. He said they used to gather news at a national level. I asked whether they were actually members of the party and he said they were not. I asked whether they went to processions and rallies and he said his brothers used to go.  I noted that his parents and [brothers] were still living in his home village in Bangladesh and he hadn’t claimed they had any problems living there. The applicant said they were not so much involved in politics as him.

15. I noted when he went back to Bangladesh he opened a [shop] and I asked if he had any involvement in the BNP at this time. He said his intention was not to join politics and work for politics; he wanted to go back, lead a normal life, and look after his parents. He lived with them. He advised he was sending back money to Bangladesh to support his parents now. He gave evidence that he sold [products] at the [shop]. He did not own the shop, he rented the premises. He gave evidence the shop was profitable.

16. I asked when he was first targeted by extortionists. He said the first was on [a date in] January.  He asked for the question to be repeated and then said they came on [a later date in] January and asked them to pay up [amount] lakhs by [a specified date in] February. He told them he didn’t have that much money.  On [that date] he didn’t open the shop. He asked if people came to look for him and they said they didn’t. He said [the next day] he opened the shop. He gave evidence that 15-20 people came to his shop and they were wearing face masks -– balaclavas.

17. I asked why the applicant had said he thought they were from the Awami League. The applicant said the present situation is that this government harbours this sort of people who extort money so they are working under cover; the target is mostly people who do not support the Awami league but who support the BNP and who can maintain themselves. I asked what these people said to him when they came to his shop. He gave evidence they said he had been with BNP for quite a long time and he had been outside the country and he must have earned money; he could not carry on supporting and working for BNP and if he was going to continue to having a shop he had to pay the ransom.

18. I put to the applicant that he had been in [Country 1] since 2008 and after he came back to Bangladesh he was not involved in the BNP in any way. I noted that it was difficult to accept that the people who came to his store would be concerned that he was involved in the BNP or be aware that he was involved in the BNP in the past. The applicant said most people were aware that he worked as an assistant [Official 1] of Chhatra Dal and from that time they were familiar with his coming and goings in the party. I asked whether there were other shopkeepers in the area. He said yes, [other] shops. Asked whether they were targeted by these people, he said people who followed the Awami league were not asked for ransom. He confirmed that he thought he was targeted because he used to be a BNP supporter. I put to him that he had recently returned from [Country 1] where he had been for five years and he was not actually involved in the BNP at that time. He said they knew he worked for the BNP.  Asked whether he was physically harmed or just threatened, he said they said he can operate and go around normally if he gives them that amount by [the specified date in] February and after that the ransom will be a monthly amount. I asked when he was beaten by the people, he said on [the next day] when he returned they beat him up and he fled through the backdoor. He went to his parents’ home, they told him it was not safe, and he fled to his [relatives].

19. When asked whether his family had had problems since he left Bangladesh, the applicant said ‘they came at his family place and threatened his dad and mum’. He said they repeatedly asked about him and his parents kept on saying the same thing: they did not have news about him. I noted he didn’t mention that his family was threatened in his statutory declaration. Asked whether he told the delegate that his family was threatened by the people who came to his shop, the applicant said later on when he was talking to his parents he came to know that these people were trying find out from the neighbours whether they saw him and whether he was going regularly to the mosque because that would mean he was living in the area. He said that this was meant when he said they went and confronted the family. I put to the applicant that at the interview with the delegate in September 2014 he didn’t mention that his family was threated. He said no.  

20. I discussed with the applicant DFAT’s assessment that ‘supporters or members of political parties in Bangladesh are not at risk of being arrested or living in fear of violence on a day-to-day basis due to their political affiliations’. I put to him that, on one view, I might find it difficult that the Awami league would want to target him in the way he described in 2013. He responded that he had established shop near to the Awami League’s area where they were in control.

21. I explained that under the refugee and complementary protection criteria he would not be owed protection if it was reasonable for him to relocate to another part of Bangladesh where he could avoid the harm he feared.  I put to the applicant that, even if I accepted his claims that he was targeted for extortion by a group of people in 2013, it was not clear why he could not avoid the harm he feared from that group by relocating to another area of Bangladesh. He said when he was a full member and he was working in that capacity he had his photographs in the party magazines and these were reprinted in the posters. At that time there was ample evidence he was working with the party. He did not have any safe haven or place to go and save his life.  If he has to look after his dad and mum and he had no other to place to be safe.

22. I put to the applicant he hadn’t produced posters or magazines in which he was featured or a membership certificate that would corroborate his claim to be involved in the BNP. I noted given he was unable to identify what the BNP flag looks like and aspects of his evidence about involvement in the BNP struck me as vague and I might have doubts about whether he was ever actually involved in the BNP.  He responded that he did have some documents with him as well as at home –if he had some time his brother could get them. I noted he applied for protection a long time ago and he had a long time to provide documents in support of his claims. I noted that he said he was pictured in magazines and posters and I had not seen anything like that. He indicated this was when he was [Official 1].

23. I discussed with the applicant his claims to have a scar on his leg. I noted I hadn’t seen the scar or medical evidence about it but, even if he did have scars, he could have got the scar through any manner of misadventures. He responded that you could tell by looking at it was a knife wound. He suggested he could obtain a medical certificate. I put to the applicant that a medical certificate may well attest he had an injury but would not tell me how he obtained the injury.

24. I asked why he hadn’t provided the documents he had previously and he said he didn’t realise they were required. I noted that before the Department he was represented by a reputable refugee advocacy body, and I had difficulty accepting that they would not have told him to provide documents that were relevant to his case. He said he did not have an opportunity to talk much to these people as he was too involved in working in Australia. After a short adjournment, the applicant provided the following documents to the Tribunal:

    (a)An untranslated document in Bengali dated [in] February 2013. The applicant gave evidence this was a complaint that was made to police after his shop was ransacked and the interpreter provided a translation of the document.

    (b)A letter typed in English dated [in] August 2013 bearing a letterhead stating Bangladesh Nationalist Party certifying that the applicant is a permanent resident of [District 1] union and that he was the [Official 1] of union Chatradal of this union.

    (c)A letter dated [in] August 2013 from the [District 1] Union Parishad which states the applicant went to [Country 1] for five years and earned a lot of money. After five years he returned home, started a business and then some political criminal claimed [amount] taka. If he does not pay their demand for money they will kill him. He left the country [in] February 2013.

    (d)A character/nationality certificate dated [in] May 2013 which states the applicant is a Bangladeshi by birth and has a good character and documentation relating to high school education

25. At the hearing the interpreter translated the document in Bengali. She indicated that she had some difficulty doing so in the hearing environment because it was a formal document. The interpreter indicated that this document was a report submitted to the police [in] February 2013 against two people (who were named).  The complainant had been in [Country 1] for five years and he came back to Bangladesh and he had opened up a shop in Bangladesh and he was doing a business. Those responsible were involved in criminal activity. Twenty to twenty-five cases are going on against them. A few days ago these people came into [the business area] came in and demanded [amount] lakh Bangladeshi taka – they came and damaged property and threatened him if he went to the courts if they get him on the road and if they get them alone they will be killed. A number of witnesses are listed.

1. The applicant told the Tribunal he submitted this report to the police. I noted he did not mention making a report to the police in his statutory declaration. He said they did not ask.  I said it was up to him provide information in support of his claims – this seemed like an important detail that he would have provided. He stated he was told only to answer the questions that were asked.

2. I discussed with the applicant that the country information available to the Tribunal indicates that it is relatively easy to obtain fraudulent documentation in Bangladesh[1] and the documents he had produced were copies not originals so I might be able to give them little weight. He said originals are in Bangladesh – his brother had scanned the documents and he could not get the originals.  The applicant was provided with two weeks to submit further documents and he was also advised he could submit a translation of the police report as the interpreter had some difficulties interpreting it at the hearing. The applicant told the Tribunal because of the short period of time he probably couldn’t get originals.

   [1] DFAT Country Information Report: Bangladesh, p.24.

3. During the hearing, the applicant advised the Tribunal that when he left Bangladesh in 2013 he travelled on a passport in his own name but it contained a visitor visa for [Country 1] rather than visa with a work permit like the first time he went to [Country 1]. He confirmed the passport he left Bangladesh on was a genuine passport issued in his own name and he had previously used this passport to travel to [Country 1]. He said when he left the country the agents organised a visitor visa and kept the document. I noted his entry interview said he left using a fake passport in the name of [an alias] but he told the Tribunal he left on a passport in his own name. He said misunderstood the significance – he said he had the same passport but not the permit to work or enter. I put to the applicant that as he did not actually leave Bangladesh illegally he did not appear he would face any harm for this reason. The applicant did not dispute this, but he said if he went back with his passport he would meet those guys who targeted him before would kill him.

4. I discussed with the applicant country information about the treatment of failed asylum seekers, which is set out below in the assessment of claims and evidence. He did not dispute this information but reiterated that the political terrorists are still at large. I noted that he had worked in [Country 1] for a period of time and he was now working in Australia. I put to him that even if I were to accept his claims it was unclear to me why it would not be reasonable for him to relocate to another area of Bangladesh and so avoid the extortionists he claimed targeted him. He said to save his life from the immediate threat he left his country. He was living in Bangladesh to support his parents. He wanted to make a new life, in a nice way, a safe way, in Australia.

   Further documentation provided after the Tribunal hearing

5. After the hearing the applicant submitted two further documents, namely:

   (a)A letter dated [in] August2013  bearing the letterhead ‘Bangladesh Natoinal party (B.N.P)’ – the spelling error is in the original – stating the applicant is a permanent resident of [District 1] union and he was the [Official 1] of the union chataradal of this union.

   (b)A letter dated [in] July 2007 said to be from [a doctor]. It certifies that the applicant was the [Official 1] of the union Chatardal of this union. It states when the applicant was returning home from [College 1], a political terrorist hurt [his] leg with a knife [in] June 2007 and he saw the mark of hurt in the test report. It also states the applicant’s behaviour and character are good.

   ASSESSMENT OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. On the evidence before me, I accept that the applicant is a national of Bangladesh. Therefore for the purposes of s.36(2)(a) I accept that Bangladesh is the country of nationality and for the purposes of s.36(2)(aa) I accept that Bangladesh is the receiving country.

   Credibility assessment

7. In determining whether the applicant is entitled to protection in Australia, it is necessary to make findings of facts on relevant matters.  In assessing the credibility of the applicant’s claims, I accept that the benefit of the doubt should be given to asylum seekers who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims. If the Tribunal 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.[2]  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.[3]

   [2] MIMA v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220

   [3] Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 per Beaumont J; Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J and Kopalapillai v MIMA (1998) 86 FCR 547

8. The Tribunal has issued guidelines on the assessment of credibility in protection visa cases, which state, in part:

   … The rejection of some of the evidence on account of a lack of credibility may not lead to a rejection of an applicant’s claim for a protection visa. For example, when assessing an applicant’s claims as to whether they meet the definition of refugee, if an applicant is disbelieved as to his or her claims, the tribunal must still consider whether, on any other basis asserted, a well-founded fear of persecution exists. However, the tribunal does not need rebutting evidence before it can lawfully find that a particular factual assertion made by an applicant is not made out.

   The tribunal considers all the material before it and is not restricted to claims and evidence considered by the primary decision-maker. If the review applicant raises new claims or presents material for the first time to the tribunal, the tribunal will consider the credibility of what has been provided, including any reasons for why it was not provided earlier in the application process. There may be good reasons why new information or claims are presented by applicants at a later stage in the application process. These reasons may include stress, anxiety, inadequate immigration advice and uncertainty about the relevance of certain information to an applicant’s claims [footnotes omitted].

9. For the purpose of this decision, I accept the following matters.

   (a)I accept the applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh of the Sunni Muslim faith who was born in the village of [his home village] and lived with his family in this area until 2008 at which time he left Bangladesh and travelled to [Country 1].

   (b)I accept that the applicant worked in [Country 1] from 2008 until January 2013 when he returned to Bangladesh.

   (c)I am prepared to accept that when the applicant returned to Bangladesh in January 2013 he opened a [store] on rented premises.

   (d)I accept that the applicant left Bangladesh [in] February 2013 and travelled to [Country 1] and then on to [Country 2] and Australia.

   (e)I accept that the applicant left Bangladesh travelling on a valid passport issued in his own name.

   (f)I accept that the applicant is currently providing financial support to his family by working in Australia.

10. I have carefully considered the applicant’s claims about the reasons he left Bangladesh in 2008 and then again in 2013. In doing so I have been mindful that the applicant is a young man who appeared before the Tribunal without the benefit of representation. However, ultimately, even when these matters are taken into account, I have reached the conclusion that he has not told the truth about the reasons he left Bangladesh in 2008 or in 2013.  My reasons for reaching this conclusion are set out in detail below. In summary: his claims to have been targeted by the Awami League because of his involvement in the BNP were highly improbable: although he told the Tribunal he was not involved in any activity with the BNP when he returned to [Country 1] in 2013 he claimed his shop was targeted by extortionists because he was known as a BNP supporter because of his activities before he went to [Country 1] in 2008. Despite claiming to be a spokesperson for the party before he travelled to [Country 1] in 2008, the applicant incorrectly said the BNP flag was blue, rather than green and red and his evidence about his past involvement in the BNP was vague and unconvincing. Furthermore, for the reasons set out below, I consider the reason that the applicant did not involve himself in political activity when he returned to Bangladesh in 2013 was because he was not actually interested in doing so.

11. I found the applicant’s claims that he was targeted by the Awami league in 2013 after he returned to Bangladesh in 2013 after spending five years living in [Country 1] to be highly improbable, particularly given the applicant told the Tribunal that he was not involved in any BNP activity when he returned to Bangladesh. Despite giving evidence that he was not involved in the BNP when he returned to [Country 1] from Bangladesh, the applicant claimed that he was still known as a BNP supporter because of his work for the BNP before he left for [Country 1] in 2008. I find the applicant’s claim that he would be targeted by the Awami league in 2013 because he had a profile as a BNP supporter before he left Bangladesh in 2008 to be far-fetched and lacking plausibility. As I put to the applicant, DFAT assesses that supporters or members of political parties in Bangladesh are not at risk of being arrested or living in fear of political violence on a day-to-day basis due to their political affiliations.[4] In response to this information, the applicant claimed his shop was in an Awami league area.

    [4] DFAT Country Report - Bangladesh, 20 October 2014, [3.55].

12. I have considered the applicant’s evidence that his shop was in an Awami league area and that he was known to people in the Awami league because of his involvement with the BNP some five years earlier.  However, I found the applicant’s evidence about his involvement in the Chhatra Dal to be vague and unconvincing. He referred variously to being the [Official 1] of the Chhatra Dal and to being [Official 2] and a [position holder]. However, while I acknowledge that the applicant has some basic knowledge of the BNP and its history, my impression was that he had memorised particular items of information in the hope of improving his prospects of obtaining a visa. Despite claiming that he had maintained his interest in the BNP while abroad when asked what happened to the BNP at the general elections in 2014, the applicant was unable to provide any meaningful details– such as, for example, that the BNP boycotted the 2014 elections. When asked about the BNP’s performance in the January 2014 General elections he said he was outside the country and he could not give an articulate report on the situation of the BNP or remember accurately.

13. I was also troubled that the applicant told the Tribunal that the BNP flag was blue, when it is green and red. I consider it strains credulity that a member of the BNP who was involved in protests and processions would not be able to identify that the party flag was red and green. I have considered the applicant’s evidence that he misunderstood the question but I found his evidence on this point confused and unconvincing and I do not accept that he has plausibly explained why he would say the flag of the party of which he has claimed that he was, at one time, a spokesperson, was blue.  In this context, I consider the reason that the applicant did not involve himself in politics when he returned to Bangladesh in 2013 was because he was not a politically active person. I do not accept that the applicant has any genuine interest in the BNP or that he maintained contact with BNP activists while in [Country 1]. While he may have had some exposure to BNP student groups when he was studying and memorised some details about the BNP’s history, I do not accept that he was ever politically active in support of the BNP.

14. At the hearing the applicant claimed that he was on posters and magazines produced by the BNP. He has not provided any documentary evidence to corroborate these claims but he has submitted other documents to the Tribunal. In my assessment, these documents do not assist his case. The documents which were provided to the Tribunal include two typed letters in English with letterheads that refer to the BNP. Both letters state the applicant was involved in the BNP and was the ‘[Official 1] of the Union Chatardal of this Union.’ Curiously letters are dated [in] August 2013, after the applicant left Bangladesh but one letter misspells the Bangladesh Nationalist Party as Bangladesh Natoinal party and the other does not. There are also other variations in font, style and the name of the signatory on one letter is illegible. Another document submitted after the hearing purports to be from a doctor in Bangladesh and is dated [in] July 2007 and it states that a political terrorist group hurt [the] applicant’s [leg] with a knife, he saw ‘the mark of hurt in the test report’ and the applicant’s behaviour and character is good’. As noted at the hearing the applicant was represented by reputable migration agents before the Department and no credible explanation has been produced for the late production of this letter and nor is apparent why a doctor might have written such a letter in English back in 2007. As noted at the hearing, the country information indicates that fraudulent documentation in Bangladesh is readily available. I give the documents the applicant has submitted to the Tribunal no weight. They do not overcome my concerns about the credibility of the applicant’s claims.

15. I acknowledge that the political environment in Bangladesh is volatile and often violent. In October 2014 DFAT has reported that opposition party members who are engaged in protest face a low risk of being arrested although opposition leaders or members with high profile may face a higher risk of arrest when engaged in political protests.[5] In August 2015 a Bangladeshi ‘national legal aid and human rights organization’, Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), reported:

    Political tension and violent acts continued in the early days of 2015. From 6 January 2015 there had been non-stop blockades all over the country by Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) led 20-party alliance and continued till the second week of April 2015. According to estimates by newspapers, during the 55 days of blockades (until 1 March 2015) 60 persons have been killed in petrol bombs and fire. No one including women, children and the elderly have been spared from bomb and cocktail attacks and there were cases where vehicle fleets under police protection have come under attack, people have been burnt near the police station, and cars have been burnt in front of the police. But only in a very few cases the police were able to catch these miscreants red-handed.[6]

    [5] DFAT Country Report - Bangladesh, 20 October 2014, [3.55].

    [6] Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) 2015, ‘Bangladesh: Failing to Fulfil Its Commitments’ < [119-138] at [124] at ‘1.3 General Human Rights Situation in 2015’, in The Asian NGO Network on National Human Rights Institutions (ANNI) 2015, 2015 ANNI Report on the Performance and Establishment of National Human Rights Institutions in Asia (Bangkok: Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA) Secretariat of ANNI, 31 August 2015 [document created 18 September 2015]) < <CISNET Library CISEC96CF13376>.

16. Both the BNP and the Awami League have active student wings (Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal for BNP and Bangladesh Chhatra League for the Awami League), whose members are often implicated in violent attacks and clashes.[7] However, while I acknowledge there are many reports about the dangers facing BNP leaders and activists, the issue in this case is whether it is credible that the applicant was ever active in support of the BNP (including by attending protests or processions or organising people to join BNP processions or meetings or as a position holder or [position holder] for the BNP student groups) in any way.  On the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the applicant was ever actively involved in the BNP as claimed.

    [7] Human Rights Watch, Democracy in the Crossfire: Opposition Violence and Government Abuses in the 2014 Pre- and Post- Election Period in Bangladesh, April 2014.

17. I was also concerned that at the Tribunal hearing the applicant raised a new claim which was that the people who targeted him at his shop went to his family home looking for him and threatened his parents.  As I put to the applicant, his family are still living in his home village in Bangladesh and he did not mention his family were threatened in his statutory declaration or, as he conceded at the hearing, in his interview with the delegate. When the applicant was asked about whether he had raised this issue before, he said later on when he was talking to his parents he came to know that these people were trying find out from the neighbours whether they saw him and whether he was going regularly to the mosque because that would mean he was living in the area. He said that this was meant when he said they went and confronted the family. I found the applicant’s evidence that his parents were threatened after he left Bangladesh and that the people who targeted his shop were looking for him to be vague and unconvincing. My doubts about the applicant’s claims that his parents were threatened by the people who targeted the applicant after he left Bangladesh are deepened by the fact that the applicant did not raise this claim at an earlier point in the protection visa application process.

18. To the extent that the applicant suggested to the Department that his family were actively involved in the BNP, I prefer his evidence to the Tribunal, which was his parents voted for the BNP but were not members of the party and were not actively involved in supporting the party. As I put to the applicant, his family members remain living in his home village and he had not claimed they had any problems living there. In response the applicant said they were not as involved in politics as him.  Before the Tribunal he did suggest his brothers was involved in some processions but, even if this were to be accepted (which, on the evidence before me, I do not), I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that, if the applicant were to return to Bangladesh, he would face serious harm or significant harm for reasons relating to his family members support of the BNP.

19. I have considered the possibility that the applicant had a [store] that was targeted by criminals because they perceived that the applicant, who had recently returned to [Country 1], had a lot of money. For the reasons that are set out above, I do not consider that the applicant’s claims that he was targeted by extortionists who were associated with the Awami league because he was involved in the BNP were credible. Nor, having had regard to the applicant’s own evidence, am I prepared to accept that his store was targeted by criminals for other reasons. At the hearing the applicant gave evidence that the men who attended his store spoke to him and told him that they were targeting him because of his involvement in the BNP and that shopkeepers who supported the Awami League were not targeted. The applicant has not claimed and, on the evidence before me, I am not prepared to accept that he was targeted by criminal extortionists who had nothing to do with the Awami League.

1. In reaching this conclusion, I have had regard to an untranslated document in Bengali dated [in] February 2013, which indicates that the applicant complained to the police that he was subject to demands for extortion. I am troubled by the fact that this document was only submitted by the applicant at a late stage in the Tribunal hearing and that his statement of claims does not mention that he reported the threats against him to the authorities. The applicant said he did not include this detail because they did not ask but, as I put to him, if he had made a report about these incidents to the authorities I consider it is reasonable to expect that he would have mentioned this in his written claims which, as noted above, were prepared with the assistance of a registered migration agent.

2. I find that the untranslated Bengali document does not assist the applicant’s case. At the hearing the interpreter provided a simultaneous translation (in Bengali and English) of this document.[8] The letter is dated [in] February 2013 and is purportedly a report made to the police about attempts made to extort money from the applicant. Although he was given an opportunity to have this document formally translated after the hearing, the applicant did not do so. I note that, based on the translation provided at the hearing, there appear to be some variations between the information contained in this document and the applicant’s oral testimony: for example, the document identifies the people who are allegedly responsible for the extortion attempts. I note, however, that the letter has not been formally translated and the interpreter did state that she had difficulty translating the document at the hearing. In any event, as I put to the applicant, the document is a copy and could easily have been fraudulently manufactured.[9] In these circumstances, I give this letter no weight.

   Conclusions about the credibility of the applicant’s claims

   [8] Tribunal file, folio 29.

   [9] DFAT Country Report - Bangladesh, 20 October 2014, [5.41]-[5.42].

3. For all the reasons set out above, I do not accept that the applicant is a credible witness. I do not accept that the applicant has been truthful about the reasons that he decided to leave Bangladesh in 2013 or in 2008.  I do not accept that the applicant was ever actively involved in the BNP as claimed. I do not accept he left Bangladesh in 2008 because he had been targeted by members of the Awami League because of his involvement in the BNP. While the applicant may have a scar on his leg, on the evidence before me, I do not accept this injury was sustained when he was assaulted by members of the Awami league in 2007 as claimed. I do not accept the applicant left Bangladesh in 2008 because he was targeted by the Awami league. I do not accept he was forced to abandon his studies because of threats from the Awami league or that, before he left Bangladesh in 2008, the applicant was ever threatened, assaulted, or asked to join the Awami league as he has variously claimed.

4. I do not accept that the applicant was ever politically active in support of the BNP as claimed. While it is possible that the applicant and his family considered themselves to be supporters of the BNP and that the applicant had some exposure to BNP youth groups when he was studying in Bangladesh before he travelled to [Country 1], I do not accept he was involved in the student wing of the BNP or that he held any position within the student wing of the BNP or that he worked as spokesperson or [Official 2] for the BNP in his area. I do not accept he ever participated in meetings of the BNP (including its student wing), rallies, protests and other public political activity. I do not accept that the applicant’s family members were ever, or are now, BNP activists.  For the reasons set out above, I do not accept he was ever an active BNP member, as claimed, and I do not accept that he would be motivated to be active in support of the BNP if he returned to Bangladesh now, or in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

5. On the evidence before me and having regard to my assessment of the applicant’s credibility, I do not accept that he is of any adverse interest to members of the Awami league or to the authorities or to any other persons or groups in Bangladesh because of his political involvement in the BNP or because he was perceived as having money after he returned to [Country 1] or because of his family’s claimed involvement in the BNP or for some combination of these reasons.  I do not accept that his shop was ever targeted and he was subject to threats and demands for money by persons or groups who were associated with the Awami League or by criminal extortionists or terrorists. I do not accept that the applicant was threatened [in] January 2013 or assaulted [in] February 2013. I do not accept that the applicant ever made a report to the authorities about people targeting his shop as claimed before the Tribunal or that he was being monitored by the persons or group who targeted him or that his parents were threatened after he left Bangladesh.

6. On the evidence before me and having regard to my findings of fact, I do not accept that there is real chance that the applicant will face serious harm for the reasons he has claimed. I do not accept that he has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for his political opinion (actual or imputed) or any of the other Convention reasons if he returns to Bangladesh now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) of the Act. Further, having regard to my findings of fact, I do not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal from Australia to Bangladesh, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm for any of the reasons claimed.

   Other matters

7. Although the applicant did not claims to fear harm because he would be returning to Bangladesh as a failed asylum seeker I have considered this issue. The country information does not indicate that there is a real chance that the applicant will face serious harm or significant harm if he were returned to Bangladesh as a failed asylum seeker. As I discussed with the applicant, DFAT reports Bangladesh accepts involuntary and voluntary returnees and, in DFAT’s assessment, people who return to Bangladesh, voluntarily or involuntarily, are unlikely to face adverse attention on their return. According to DFAT, thousands of Bangladeshis enter and leave the country every day and the return of failed asylum seekers is unlikely to be reported by airport authorities to the Department of Immigration and Passports, Ministry of Home Affairs or other agencies beyond the normal processes whereby returning nationals have their entry and exit from Bangladesh recorded.[10] 

   Conclusions with respect to the refugee criteria

   [10] DFAT Country Report - Bangladesh, 20 October 2014, [5.32]. 

8. Having considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively, and having regard to my findings of fact, I do not accept there is a real chance that he will suffer serious harm if he returns to Bangladesh, now or in the foreseeable future.  On the evidence before me, I do not accept that he has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for his actual or perceived political opinion or for any other Convention reasons if he returns to Bangladesh now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.

   Conclusions with respect to the complementary protection criteria

9. Having found that the applicant is not a refugee, I have considered whether he meets the criteria for complementary protection. For the reasons set out above, I have rejected his claims to have experienced harm in Bangladesh in the past in their entirety. Having regard to my findings of fact and what I have accepted about the applicant’s circumstances, I do not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal from Australia to Bangladesh, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.

   CONCLUSION

10. 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).

11. 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).

12. 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

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

    Frances Simmons
    Member