1420211 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision by the Department of Immigration not to grant him a protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared return to Bangladesh because he was a member of Tabligh Jamaat, a non-political Islamic group, and faced threats from activists of the Awami League, a political party opposed to the government. The applicant alleged that these activists accused him of being an activist for Jamaat-e-Islami, the political enemy of the Awami League, and threatened him with problems if he did not cease his religious activities and join the Awami League. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the applicant's claims, evidence including his visa application, statements, identity documents, oral evidence from interviews and hearings, written submissions, and country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as well as relevant departmental guidelines.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing the applicant's credibility regarding his claims of persecution and determining if he had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of his membership in Tabligh Jamaat, or if he would suffer significant harm if returned to Bangladesh. The Tribunal was required to consider the evidence in light of Ministerial Direction No. 56, which mandates consideration of departmental policy guidelines and country information assessments.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). While the Tribunal considered the applicant's claims and the evidence presented, it ultimately found that the applicant did not establish that he met the requirements for a protection visa. The decision does not elaborate on the specific reasons for this finding beyond stating that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2), nor does it suggest that the applicant satisfied the criteria based on family unit membership.

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