1503204 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming he would face persecution in Bangladesh due to his political opinions and his atheism. He had been involved in online activism, including maintaining a website to promote justice for victims of the Bangladesh Independence War and supporting the Shahbag movement, which advocated for the punishment of independence war criminals. The applicant feared targeting by Islamic extremists because of his religious views and activism, and believed he could not obtain state protection in Bangladesh. He submitted documents including a warrant of arrest and charge sheets against him, but did not attend a scheduled interview, citing illness.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of his political opinion and religion, and whether he could access effective protection from the Bangladeshi authorities. This involved assessing the risk of harm from extremist groups and the capacity and willingness of the state to protect individuals with secular or anti-extremist views. The court also considered the definition of "member of the same family unit" under the Migration Act and Regulations in relation to the other applicants.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant was an atheist who had actively opposed Islamic fundamentalism and advocated for the punishment of war criminals. It found that there was a real chance he would be exposed to serious harm from violent extremists if he returned to Bangladesh, due to his imputed religious belief and political activities. The Tribunal considered extensive country information indicating a worsening threat to atheists and secularists in Bangladesh, with extremist groups claiming responsibility for killings and threats against such individuals. It also noted that while the Bangladeshi authorities had taken some steps to investigate attacks, the protection offered was often inadequate, and the authorities themselves could prosecute individuals for expressing views perceived as anti-Islamic under the Information and Communication Technology Act. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant could access effective state protection or avoid persecution by relocating internally within Bangladesh.

The Tribunal concluded that the first applicant satisfied the criterion for a protection visa under s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act, having a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of his political opinion and religion. The Tribunal also found that the first applicant's wife and children were members of the same family unit for the purposes of s.36(2)(b)(i). The matter was remitted for reconsideration with directions that the first applicant satisfies s.36(2)(a) and the other applicants satisfy s.36(2)(b)(i) of the Migration Act.