1503768 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 3069

1503768 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 3069 (14 March 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1503768

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Bangladesh

MEMBER:Gabrielle Cullen

DATE:14 March 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 14 March 2017 at 11:59am

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Bangladesh – Political opinion – Political activist with Jatiyabadi Chattra Dal (JCD) – Social group – Victim of threats and intimidation by Awami League Activists – Persons involved in family property dispute – Fear of harm by brother, Chattra League and Awami League supporters – Credibility Issues

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh and born in Sylhet District, fears return from Awami League activists on account of his involvement with the Jatiyabadi Chattra Dal (JCD)[1] and Bangladesh National Party (BNP). He also fears return from his brother who is actively involved in the Awami League and has ousted he and other family members from their home. He fears for his safety and that he will be seriously harmed on return.

   [1] Student wing of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP)

3. He departed Bangladesh for Australia and arrived [in] May 2014 as the holder of a subclass 600 visitor visa. He applied for the protection visa [in] June 2014.

4. [In] February 2015 the applicant was interviewed by the Department. The Tribunal has listened to the tape of that interview and where relevant the evidence from that interview appears in this decision.

5. The delegate refused to grant the visa [in] February 2015[2]. While accepting the applicant was a credible witness as to his political claims on the basis of independent information and the level of the applicant’s profile he found it was remote that the applicant would be harmed on return. With regard to the dispute with [Mr A], he found the harm he feared speculative and not a real chance.

   [2] The decision was attached to the Application for Review.

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 20 February 2017 to give evidence and present arguments and where relevant the evidence from that hearing appears in this decision. The applicant was assisted with an interpreter in the Bengali and English languages, although much of the hearing was conducted in English, with the applicant’s approval. The applicant’s representative attended the hearing.

7. The applicant was given until 1 March 2017 to provide information on any matter he considered relevant. On request this was extended to 8 March 2017.

8. The issues to be considered in this case are as follows.

   ·Is the applicant credible as to his claims?

   ·Does the applicant have a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to Bangladesh and meet the protection obligations under the Refugees Convention?

   ·Does he meet the protection obligations under the complementary protection provisions of the Migration Act?

   RELEVANT LAW

9. 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.

10. 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).

11. 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.

12. 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’).

13. 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.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

14. The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to the applicant. The Tribunal also has had regard to the material referred to in the delegate’s decision, and other material available to it from a range of sources. This includes, but is not limited to, the following.

    ·The applicant’s protection visa application of [June] 2014, attached statement and identity documents.

    ·Oral evidence provided at the Department interview held [in] February 2015 and Tribunal hearing held on 20 February 2017.

    ·Certificate from JCD dated [in] February 2017, signed by [two witnesses], [senior members] of the JCD, Sylhet. It claims the applicant was an active worker of the JCD Sylhet District Branch. It notes as a member of the JCD the applicant was involved in political, social and cultural activities as well as assisting children. It notes he has good moral character.

    ·Letter from the applicant’s mother dated [in] April 2015 indicating she understands that recently the applicant has become upset and depressed. She refers to the feud between the applicant and her [other] son regarding the family property and immense political rivalry. She claims it has escalated to an extremely serious stage. She claims [Mr A] is taking advantage of the applicant being out of the country and trying by force to remove him from ownership of family property. She writes that [Mr A] is determined to not allow the applicant to live in the house again. She claims because of [Mr A’s] links to the ruling party he can use violent and rowdy activists to achieve his desired outcome. She claims he recently attacked the rental apartment she lives in and smashed the door and windows and threatened her with more similar attacks if the applicant returns to live there. She claims as a mother she tried to counsel and discipline her son but he is by nature stubborn and arrogant. She claims when the applicant was living in the country, [Mr A] always threatened him with physical harm and even with his life. She claims she has always tried to protect the applicant. She claims in fear of his life she sent the applicant to another country but there was no work and no money there so he had to return home.  She claims there is a good chance he will lose his life if he returns home.

    ·Letter from [Dr B], medical office of [a] College and Hospital. He recalls that the applicant on his way home from work in the late afternoon at the end of 2010 or beginning of 2011 was intimidated by 3 to 4 unknown persons in front of the medical centre. He claims the applicant ran away to the medical centre to escape from what happened. He claims he recalls him being frightened in his office and tried to comfort him, as he was shocked and scared. He claims he drove him home.

    ·Country Information submitted as to the difficulties faced by those politically active with the BNP and JCD including:

    oBBC News Article “Bangladeshi’s ruling Awami League wins boycotted poll.”

    oDFAT, Country Profile – Bangladesh.

    oBangladesh Police, Crime Statistics.

    oSydney Morning Herald, Bangladesh Elections.

    oNew Age Article, Return of Missing JCD Leader.

    oHuman Rights Watch Report 2014, Bangladesh.

    oOdhiker Bangladesh Human Rights Report, 2016.

    ·Submissions from the applicant’s representative dated15 February 2017 and 8 March 2017 including information indicating [Dr B] is a registered Doctor and information relating to the Electoral Rolls Ordinance.

    ·DFAT DFAT Country Report Bangladesh 5 July 2016.

    ·Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and Humanitarian – Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and Humanitarian – Refugee Law Guidelines.

15. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    Is the applicant credible as to his claims?

    The Applicant’s Claims

16. In his statement attached to his protection visa application the applicant indicates he achieved a Master [degree] in 2008.

17. He claims two major problems as to why he fears for his life. Firstly he claims he was a political activist with the JCD, a student wing of the BNP. He claims his leaders were [two people] who are both suspected of being kidnapped by the Awami League. He claims the Government is using the police and other security forces to wipe out BNP followers and Jamaat Islami followers. He claims they are routinely killing, kidnapping, and torturing leaders, supporters, workers and activists of the BNP. He claims as a mainstream worker of the BNP, which is aligned with the JI, he is also a target for their torture, arrest, kidnapping and he is sure he will be killed. He claims this is common in Bangladesh and he has already been tortured by the Awami League. He claims fearing for his life he had to flee his country and take shelter somewhere else. He claims he tried [Country 1] and could not obtain substantive shelter there and went to [Country 2] for the same purpose. He claims he returned to [Country 1] but could not stay there any longer and he became destitute, penniless and helpless. He claims being extremely hungry and thirsty there so he flew back to Bangladesh.

18. He claims his other problem is his brother, [who] is a strong follower and activist of the ruling Awami League. He claims [Mr A] forcibly removed him from the family home to give to [another person]. He claims [Mr A] creates many difficulties by reporting the applicant’s activities to the Awami League supporters and party who in turn look for him and torture him and are even a threat to his life. He claims his mother tries to help by calling their cousin as the police will not help and will arrest him on advice from the party leader. He claims most of the time the attacks happened outside the home. He claims being concerned for his life and safety he looked for protection elsewhere in his country and outside but failed.

19. He claims he shared his problems with his close friend and he suggested he join [an organisation] as there was a Convention in Australia, so he applied for a visa. He claims if he returns to Bangladesh he will suffer serious harm and significant harm due to his political opinion.

20. At the Department interview the applicant reiterated his claims to fear protection. He indicated he had sought documentary evidence he was a member of the JCD or BNP but said he had been unable to obtain documentation from Bangladesh. When questioned as to why this was the case when he had been in Australia for six months, he said he had tried but had been unable to do so. He said leaders of the political organisation were fearful of being seen to provide documents and they were unresponsive to requests.

21. As to his role with the JCD, he said he attended protests rallies at University which were held in order to protest price rises in energy costs. He also said he participated in activities to recruit party members.

22. The applicant was asked about his previous trip to [Country 3], and he said he was unable to claim protection. The applicant was asked about his attempt to seek safety in [Country 1] and [Country 2]. The applicant was asked, since he travelled there to seek asylum why he did not apply for asylum. He said he had a series of unfortunate events, was swindled of money and exploited by corrupt officials. He said he had severe language barriers in [Country 2], did not know how to apply for protection or any type of assistance.

23. As to instances of past harm; he said he was harassed by men unknown to him after he departed his office [in] 2010/11. He claims he was harassed and asked questions by the men he presumed were sent by his brother, [Mr A]. He claims to have gone to the office of a friend at his medical clinic who later drove him home. He was not harmed in the incident. He claims he has also been threatened by his brother. As to the attack by his brother he said he was hit with a chair at the family home. The applicant also claims another brother was attacked by [Mr A]. As to how long he had feared harm from his brother, he said since 2004.

24. In a submission from the applicant’s representative, the applicant claims he seeks protection due to being previously threatened and intimidated by the Awami League supporters and activists due to his membership of the JCD. He claims he has been the subject of a physical attack by them. He claims his [brother], [Mr A], has been aggressive towards him in the past and has now commandeered the family home and forcibly removed him from the property. He believes [Mr A] was instrumental in arranging the above intimidation by the Awami League activists. He believes his activities are being monitored and reported to the Awami League, security forces and police.

25. The advisor notes that the applicant did not have legal advice when preparing his application. He submits the applicant’s claims have not been properly articulated in that statement.

26. In addition to the above mentioned claims, he adds that the applicant attended several politically charged protests and rallies on university grounds and these activities have now come to the attention of the Awami League as well as his brother. He claims he first suffered harassment when he was leaving his work in 2010/11. He claims that although he did not know who these men were, he believes they belonged to the Awami League and had been referred to him by his brother, [Mr A].

27. He claims his [brother], [Mr A], a follower and political activist of the Awami League has threatened him on numerous occasions as well as physically assaulted the applicant with a chair. The applicant notes he has had ongoing fear from [Mr A] since he joined the JCD in 2004. In approximately 2014 [Mr A] forcibly removed the applicant and the rest of his family from their family home.

28. The advisor also outlines the political situation in Bangladesh, the applicant’s fear of personal retribution from [Mr A] and outlines the applicant’s previous attempts to seek protection in [Country 2] and [Country 1] and why he did not. The representative also provides reasons as to why it has taken so long to obtain the documentation from JCD.

29. At the Tribunal hearing the applicant reiterated his claims as to fearing return as a result of his brother and due to his political involvement and activities. He claims his brother will harm him on return as he fears he will institute proceedings to reclaim the family property he has taken in [Village 1]. He referred to incidents of harm in being chased with weapons by the Awami League in 2002/3, his brother hitting him with a chair in 2010 and Awami League men threatening and warning him in early 2011 to not seek the family property in [Village 1] back from his brother, [Mr A]. The Tribunal discussed with him where he and his family had lived, his education and work history. It questioned him on his political beliefs and activities, the particular incidents of harm he claims he faced and the steps he took to seek protection. It raised with him concerns as to the credibility of his claims and where relevant these have been outlined below.

30. On 8 March 2017 the applicant’s representative provided a post-hearing submission which has been considered and elaborated on where relevant below. In summary, he questions the Tribunal’s concern as to the veracity of the documents. He notes he gave the Tribunal the opportunity to examine the original documentation, particiculary with regard to his membership of the JCD, prior to the conclusion of the hearing, which was declined by the Tribunal. He submits it is unreasonable to assume all documents submitted from Bangladesh are not genuine based on the DFAT information.

31. The representative also refers to the Tribunal’s concerns that the applicant travelled to [Country 2], [Country 1] and [Country 3] to seek protection. In particular he refers to the applicant’s consistency that he travelled to these countries to apply for protection between the Department and Tribunal. He submits that as a migrant group it is understandable why he sought advice and guidance from Bangladeshi groups as to seeking protection and would not have conducted research prior to travelling to seek protection in these countries. He submits that it is unreasonable to expect that as the applicant is an ‘educated man’ that he would be well-versed in immigration law and policy in three countries. He submits it is unreasonable to conclude that just because the applicant made contact with Bangladeshi migrant groups in each country or that he arrived in each country ill-informed on protection visa law and undermines the credibility of his claims of a fear of persecution in Bangladesh.

32. As to the inconsistency in details and information raised by the Tribunal, he submits that the applicant advises that he is reluctant to discuss events that occurred in his life in Bangladesh for fear of re-awakening anxiety and stress. He submits while the applicant can regale on matters such as family and work experience, on matters concerning his harassment, involvement with the JCD and difficulties encountered from his brother he becomes flustered and anxious in having to relive such memories. The representative submits that record keeping in Bangladesh is not advanced or as observed as in Australia. He submits being unable to recall official dates, locations and certain other specifics is not a reflection on the applicant’s credibility but rather as a result of cultural heritage and exposure to poor record keeping in Bangladesh.

33. He also refutes that the letter of [Dr B] is not reliable and the Tribunal’s concern that it is issued on the incorrect letterhead and does not include all the relevant details. He notes that while the applicant is unable to produce additional documentation to support [Dr B’s] claims, he submits documentation to show that [Dr B] is registered with the Bangladesh Medical and Dental Council. He urged the Tribunal to contact [Dr B] for further details and information and to substantiate supporting documentation. He submits that is it reasonable for the Tribunal to follow up on the documentation where the document is deemed fake or questioned.

1. He also provides information regarding issues around the 2008 election and why the applicant voted in Sylhet [number] and not Sylhet [number] where his ID card indicates he resides. The representative refers to the Bangladesh Electoral Rolls Ordinance where it notes that a person is deemed to be a resident in an electoral area or constituency if he ordinarily resides in that area. He submits on the basis of information in the Ordinance that the applicant was able to be registered in Sylhet [number] but vote in Sylhet [number] due to his being ordinarily resident in the latter location.

2. He also submits that the applicant was able to answer questions concerning candidates across numerous constituencies as well as the parties they represented. He submits that such an in-depth understanding of the electoral process, as well as those standing for the election; clearly suggest a level of involvement in the 2008 election as claimed by the applicant. He submits that this is particiculary so as it occurred nearly a decade ago.

   Assessment of Credibility of Claims

3. Having sighted a copy of the applicant’s identity documents, and on the basis of the applicant’s evidence at hearing, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a national of Bangladesh for the purposes of s.36(2)(a). For the purposes of s.36(2)(aa) the Tribunal accepts that Bangladesh is the receiving country.

4. As to the applicant having faced the difficulties he claims in Bangladesh, for the reasons that follow the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is a credible witness and suffered the harm or difficulties in his country that he claims for the reasons that he claims, which led him to leave Bangladesh and why he fears return.

5. It follows it does not accept that he was ever involved in the JCD or the BNP in the manner claimed or that he was harassed, threatened and physically assaulted by members of the Awami League due to his political involvement and family property dispute with his brother, [Mr A]. It finds his testimony to be inconsistent as to these claims, and is of the view that he has fabricated claims and concocted evidence to achieve an immigration outcome.

   Political Involvement from 2001 to 2006

6. The applicant claimed at hearing to have been involved with the JCD while at [the] College in Sylhet from [year to year] and while living and working in Sylhet from 2004 to 2006. He claimed he attended meetings and was involved in protests rallies. He said he also worked in social programs for children. When asked as to particular incidents of harm he faced in this period he spoke generally as to violence at rallies and then referred to one incident. He indicated that in 2002/2003 while protesting in a rally he was chased by Awami League supporters with knives and other sharp instruments but escaped without injury.

7. However for the reasons that follow the Tribunal does not accept the applicant ever joined the JCD working with the BNP or was involved with them, or faced any of the difficulties he claims in this period. This adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

8. Firstly, his evidence is not consistent with independent information as to who was in government at the time which the Tribunal expects he would know if the applicant was actively involved in the JCD at the time. He said at the Tribunal hearing that while at College from [year to year] the Chattra League (student wing of the Awami League) was always making violence. He said the police were part of them as they always go with the government of the time. He said the Chattra League had power as the police answered to the Awami League and the Awami League was in power. He said as a result the JCD had no power at College and the Awami League, together with the Chattra League, did what they liked. He said they could not protest often but the Awami League could do it all the time. He referred to the particular incident in 2002/3 and said it was because the Awami League had the power at the time, as they were in government and the BNP was in opposition. He said that the police were no protection in the particular incident as the police were answerable to the Awami League who was in power. He said for this reason they could not go to the police after they were chased.

9. Also he said at the Department interview that in 2004/5 there was an election and that is when the Awami League came to power and that is why he faced the difficulties after that time.

10. However, as raised with him, in contrast to his claim at the hearing that the Awami League was in power from 2001 to 2006 or from 2004/5 as he said to the Department at interview, independent information indicates that the BNP was in government, with their leader Khaleda Zia as Prime Minister from 2001 to 2006[3]. Information indicates that the periods of rule by the BNP and Awami League has also corresponded with mistreatment of opposition supporters. Odhikar reports that a current and recurring trend in Bangladesh involves activists and leaders of the ruling party attacking opposition supporters with a certain degree of impunity.[4] The ICG similarly reports that “the broad powers the law gives the government have made control of police one of the spoils of an electoral victory”.[5]

    [3] Encyclopedia Britannica 2011, Khaleda Zia < Accessed 7 September 201

    [4] Odhikar 2013, Human Rights Monitoring Report January 1 – June 30, 2013, 1 July, p.11 < Accessed 19 July 2013

    [5] International Crisis Group 2009, Bangladesh: Getting Police Reform on Track, Asia Report N°182, 11 December, p.1 < Accessed 5 July 2013

11. When the above information was raised with the applicant and that it contrasts with his claim that the Awami League was in power at the time, acting with impunity, with the support of the police; the applicant responded that he knows the BNP was in power from 2001 to 2004. He said that the police are corrupt and anyone can pay them money. He said even when the BNP were in power his brother had good relationships with the police and Awami League.

12. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s response as it is inconsistent with independent information that the BNP were in power until 2006, and his claim that there was an election in 2004/5. The information indicates it was in 2008 after a period from 2006 where there was a caretaker government. It has difficulty accepting that that his brother’s relationship with the police explains why the Awami League generally, and the associated Chattra Dal could act with impunity at the time when the information indicates that the party in power, namely the BNP would have been able to do so.

13. The Tribunal is of the view if the applicant was involved in the JCD (student wing of the BNP) at the time as claimed he would know whether his party, the BNP, was in power. It is of the view he would be able to recall while he was at College from [year to year] and involved in BNP student politics whether the BNP or Awami League was in government if he was a supporter, member or activist for the JCD and BNP. Similarly it is of the view he would know if there was an election in 2004/5 or not. This is particiculary so as it is his claim he was targeted in this period, specifically in 2002/3 and unable to obtain help from the police as the Awami League was in power.

14. This leads the Tribunal to find he is not a credible witness as to ever being involved in the JCD and BNP in this period in any manner whatsoever and faced the difficulties he claims, including being chased with knives and instruments by the Awami League in 2002/3. It adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

15. This adds to the finding the applicant is not a credible witness.

    [Mr A] Difficulties faced in Bangladesh

16. Central to the applicant’s claims as to why he fears return and why he departed Bangladesh is the difficulties he faced at the hands of the Awami League due to his political involvement and activism with the JCD and BNP and dispute with his brother, [Mr A], over the family property in [Village 1]. He claims that his brother was closely involved with the Awami League and the applicant’s political involvement with the JCD together with his brother wanting the family home in [Village 1], led him to be targeted and why he fears return. He also claims his mother and brother were targeted after he departed.

17. At hearing he was asked to detail the particular incidents of harm he and his family had faced in Bangladesh. As well as the instance in 2002/3 considered above by Awami League members generally, he also referred to being hit with a chair by his brother in 2010 and being harassed by 3 or 4 unknown persons who he believed were linked to the Awami League and his brother in early 2011. He also said he believed his motorbike was stolen by his brother. He said after he departed Bangladesh his brother attacked his home, where he had lived with his mother and other brothers, smashed it up and his family had to move to another area. He indicated on a number of occasions that was the sum of the difficulties he faced when asked if there were any other incidents of harm and whether anything else happened. His also said his brother, [Mr C] had been attacked.

18. However for the reasons that follow, including inconsistent evidence, the Tribunals finds the applicant is not a credible witness as to facing the difficulties claimed.

19. Firstly, at the hearing before me the applicant indicated that his brother, [Mr A] lived with the applicant, his mother and two other brothers in the Sylhet city rented house until 2010. He said in 2010 in a dispute over finances and property [Mr A] hit the applicant with a chair. He said soon after that [Mr A] moved to the family home, 50kms away in [Village 1] village and from that time held it exclusively. He claims he will kill him if he returns as he wants ownership of the [Village 1] property. He said because of [Mr A] close relationship with the Awami League they have harmed him. He said there was much conflict but after [Mr A] moved to [Village 1] taking the family home there was no further face to face meeting although he sometimes saw him in the distance.

20. However, at the Department interview he said he was struck with a chair by [Mr A] in 2004/5. When the inconsistency was raised with the applicant he responded that it happened a long time ago and he is not sure what he meant at the Department interview. He said a lot of things have happened and he is very stressed and there is a lot to deal with. While I accept that it is often difficult to remember exact dates I view a difference of six years to be significant. This is particularly so as the applicant is very well educated, having achieved a [degree] from [a] University in Bangladesh. I expect if the applicant feared return because of the dispute with his brother he would be able to be provide a generally consistent time frame as to when he his brother hit him with the chair even if it happened a long time ago, particiculary as this is the only incident claimed where he was directly hit by his brother. I do not accept it is because he is stressed, has anxiety, has a lot to deal with, because of cultural issues as to record keeping or as many things have happened as he was able to provide consistent evidence as to where he lived, worked and other basic facts and the time frames throughout the process.

21. Further, the applicant has also provided inconsistent evidence as to the harassment and threats by the unknown persons, which he believes to be the Awami League acting on behalf of his brother.

22. At the hearing before me he said in early 2011, 3 to 4 persons, who he believes were with the Awami League acting on behalf of his brother, harassed and threatened him after he left work, whereas he said at the Department interview this event occurred in January or February 2013. While he was consistent as to where he was harassed, that it was after work and that he went running to his friend, a Doctor, in a nearby office, at the Tribunal hearing he said he had never seen the men before when asked how he knew [Mr A] was involved with them, whereas at the Department interview he said he knew they were Awami League as he had seen his brother with them having a cigarette.

23. When the above concerns were raised with the applicant he said it was a long time ago and he has forgotten. The Tribunal is of the view given the significance of the event and his level of education that he would recall when the event approximately happened and whether he had seen the people before, if it was based on actual and personal experience even if it occurred some time ago. This is particiculary so as this is the last event he claims occurred where he was approached and threatened prior to his departure.

24. Further, the applicant has provided inconsistent evidence as to when [Mr A] went to the rented family home in Sylhet town and smashed it up threatening more attacks if the applicant returns. He said the family moved to another address in Sylhet town very soon after the attack as a result. He referred to only one incident. Initially at the Tribunal hearing the applicant stated it occurred 5/6 months before the hearing, in approximately August 2016. Later he said and confirmed it occurred in June 2015. The Tribunal notes the letter, claiming to be from his mother, written in April 2015 refers to [Mr A] coming and smashing up the house. The written submission form the applicant’s representative refers to it occurring in 2014. In response the applicant indicated that he is living in Australia and not living with them and it is hard to remember. The Tribunal does not accept this response and is of the view that given it is his claim occurred recently and his family had to leave after the event, he would be able to advise if true if it occurred, 6 months agao or over a year ago. This leads the Tribunal to find the applicant’s home was not smashed by [Mr A], his mother was not threatened, the applicant was not threatened via his mother and as a result the family moved. This adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

25. Further, while the applicant has been consistent that [Mr A] has taken the family home in [Village 1], he has provided inconsistent evidence between the Department and Tribunal as to whether [Mr A] has also taken the family land used for cultivation. At the Tribunal hearing the applicant indicated that [Mr A] has taken both the house and the land. He said this was the only property the family owned. However as raised with him, in contrast at the Department interview he indicated that the land for cultivation was safe from [Mr A]. When the concern was raised with the applicant, in response he indicated that the land is in front of the house and they do not have access to it and [Mr A] does not let them in. The Tribunal does not accept this response as explaining the inconsistency and is of the view that the applicant would be consistent between the Department and Tribunal if [Mr A] had also taken the family land used for cultivation as well.

26. The above concerns add to the finding the applicant is not a credible witness.

    Lived and worked in the same place until departure

27. The Tribunal views as inconsistent with the applicant’s claim of departing Bangladesh in fear of serious harm from the Awami League and [Mr A], fearing kidnapping, death and torture, his evidence that he remained living at his home and working at his employment until his departure in 2014 for Australia. The applicant’s evidence is that he lived with his mother and [brothers] in Sylhet town from 2004 until his departure in 2014, except from 2006 to 2008 when he completed [a degree] in Dhaka. He also claims he worked five days a week [from] 2010 until his departure in 2014. He indicated he resigned after his arrival in Australia.

28. When the Tribunal raised with him its concern in this regard and that it questioned the credibility of his claims and that he was in a state of fear during this period and departed Bangladesh as he feared being harmed, the applicant responded that he could live and work there until his departure as he had not directly sought or become involved in seeking back the ancestral home in [Village 1] from [Mr A]. He said he would be shot and attacked if he had confronted him about the property. He claims [Mr A] fears that the applicant will take action in the future to recover the property. At the Department interview he stated his brother fears he will lose the property and the applicant will be successful in recovering it if the BNP comes to power.

29. When the Tribunal asked why he had not taken action in the past when it is his claim the property had been taken in 2010; he said he has earned money in Australia and he will be able to bribe the police to help him recover the property. He said he had to support his family at the time.

30. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s response as his evidence is that from 2010 he was earning a good wage in Bangladesh of $[amount]US per month working as [Occupation 1], and was quite wealthy. It is also his evidence his brother, [Mr C] spent $[amount]US on the applicant’s [degree] at [University] in Bangladesh. It is also his evidence that his brother [Mr C] was mainly supporting the family. The Tribunal questioned that as he had a good wage in Bangladesh, and from a wealthy family it had difficulty believing he and his family did not take action to recover it previously. It has also considered his response that his brother, [Mr A], fears he will lose the property if the BNP comes to power in the future, but expects if true he would have also stated this at the Tribunal hearing, which he did not.

31. The evidence of the applicant that he lived and worked at the same address in Bangladesh up until his departure to Australia, further undermines his claim of past harm, claims as to the difficulties he faced and that he fled in fear. It adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

    Seeking to live elsewhere in Bangladesh to avoid harm

32. The applicant has also provided inconsistent evidence as to whether he sought to live elsewhere in Bangladesh to avoid the harm feared.

33. At the Tribunal hearing the applicant was asked whether he had sought to live elsewhere in Bangladesh to avoid the harm claimed and feared. He said he had tried to live in Dhaka and had sought information as to living in other areas. He said he had not gone to any other areas to avoid the harm feared. He said Bangladesh is a small country and relationships between the parties in different areas are close. He also referred to the lack of employment in other areas.

34. However, as raised with the applicant, at the Department interview he indicated that he went to Chittagong for about 5 to 6 days. At the Department interview he said he communicated with friends who were living in different places and they asked him to come and stay. He said that while they advised him he could come they could not financially support him. He said he went and stayed with a friend in Chittagong for his safety. He said that he realized he could not stay there as it was more difficult to survive and that he would have to flee his country.

35. The applicant’s inconsistent evidence as to seeking safety in Chittagong or not further undermines the applicant’s credibility.

    Seeking Protection in [Country 3], [Country 2] and [Country 1]

36. For the reasons that follow the Tribunal does not accept as truthful that the applicant travelled to [Country 3] in 2012 and [Country 1] and [Country 2] in 2013 to seek asylum but due to the difficulties claimed returned to Bangladesh. It views his return to Bangladesh and to the same home and same job as undermining his claims of being targeted in Bangladesh and living in fear. This adds to the finding he is not a credible witness.

1. The evidence of the applicant is that he travelled to [Country 3] from [October] 2012 to [October 2012] and [Country 1] and [Country 2] from [October] 2013 to [October] 2013. He claims being in [Country 2] for three days and the rest in [Country 1].

2. The applicant claims in his statement that fearing for his life he tried to seek shelter in [Country 1] and [Country 2]. He claims it was even worse there and he went back penniless and helpless. He claims being hungry and thirsty he thought it was better to die in his own country, so he went back to Bangladesh. At the Department interview he said he could not seek safety anywhere in [Country 3]. The applicant said he travelled to [Country 1] and [Country 2] to seek safety but was swindled of money by corrupt policeman in [Country 1], and had severe language barriers in [Country 2] and did not know how to apply for protection or to seek assistance. In the written submission he repeated he did not seek asylum in [Country 1] due to corrupt officials and because of language barriers in [Country 2]. He submitted he undertook travel to [Country 1], [Country 2] and [Country 3] in direct response to the ongoing political crisis in Bangladesh.

3. At the Tribunal hearing he indicated that he went to [Country 3] for three to four days and stayed with the relatives of a Bangladeshi [friend]. He said he went to [Country 3] to see if he could apply for asylum. He said when he went there they told him it was hard to seek political asylum in [Country 3]. When asked who he also spoke to he said his friend [who] lives in [Bangladesh]. He said he went to [Country 1] and [Country 2] to seek protection. He said he searched the internet but could find little information as to how to seek protection when asked if he did. He said he had to pay a bribe to police in [Country 1] at the airport. When asked who he spoke to about the options of seeking asylum he said Bangladeshis at a shop and other random Bangladeshis. He said in [Country 2] he had no clue because of the language barriers. He said he spent ten days prior to his trip organizing the travel to [Country 2] and [Country 1].

4. The Tribunal has difficulty accepting that a person in fear of harm, one as educated as the applicant with a [degree] from [a] University (Bangladesh), who speaks and reads English, who was at the time [Occupation 1] in a [workplace], would only speak to relatives of a friend in Assam about seeking political asylum in [Country 3] if his fear of harm is true. Similarly it has difficulty accepting he would only talk to random Bangladeshis in [Country 1] and stay only days even if harassed and swindled by officials. While he claims he did search on the internet, the Tribunal has difficulty accepting this is true. The information on the internet indicates that asylum seekers can seek asylum at the United Nations Refugee Agency, UNHCR in [Country 1], including Bangladeshis. Information, as raised with the applicant on the UNHCR [Country 1] website refers to how to register with UNHCR [Country 1] and how to seek asylum. This information is readily available on the internet with addresses and contact details[6] . It indicates that UNHCR [Country 1] has been assessing asylum seekers under this system since 2013. It notes that in mid-2013 there were approximately [a number of] asylum seekers.[7]

   [6] [Source deleted.]

   [7] [Source deleted.]

5. His claim he was penniless and had to return as he was hungry and thirsty and living in Bangladesh was better than living in that state, is also of concern when it his claim he had a very good salary in Bangladesh, earning $[amount] per month and his family had paid $[amount] for him to undertake a [degree] at [a] University.

6. When the Tribunal raised its concerns in this regard, the applicant responded at hearing that he tried to seek asylum but it was his first time abroad. He said he was worried about losing his job and he had bad experiences. The Tribunal has also considered the response of the representative to these concerns as outlined above.

7. However it does not accept that language barriers or cultural differences explain the concerns of the Tribunal nor why he only spoke to local Bangladeshis. This is particiculary so as the applicant speaks and reads English. It does not accept that it is unreasonable to expect that a person fleeing harm with the applicant’s attributes, as outlined above, would have researched and undertaken further steps to obtain information on seeking asylum if he his purpose to visit these places was to seek protection. It does not accept that a person with his attributes, particiculary [as Occupation 1], would undertake the limited steps he did, speaking to local Bangladeshis if he fled Bangladesh in fear. This is particiculary so as the information as to seeking asylum in [Country 1] is readily and easily available and does not require an understanding of migration law and policy.

8. The Tribunal has considered his responses but is of the view he is not credible as to travelling to [Country 3], [Country 1] and [Country 2] to seek asylum due to the difficulties he faced in Bangladesh and his fear of harm. It views his return to Bangladesh on two occasions to his home and job as inconsistent with his claimed fear of harm.

9. This adds to the finding the applicant is not a credible witness.

   Credibility Summary

10. For all the above reasons, considered cumulatively, the Tribunal does not find the applicant to be a credible, truthful and reliable witness. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant has fabricated claims and concocted evidence to achieve an immigration outcome. On the basis of the above cumulative credibility concerns the Tribunal therefore does not accept that the applicant is a credible witness and cannot be satisfied on the evidence before it that the applicant is a truthful witness as to his claims as to why he departed Bangladesh and why he fears return.

11. In making these findings, the Tribunal has allowed for the possibility of discrepancies arising because of genuine lapses of memory, nervousness and the manner in which responses can differ depending on the nature and manner of which a question is asked. It is also sensitive to the various cultural differences that can impact on an applicant’s responses to questioning, as discussed in the Tribunal’s ‘Guidance on the Assessment of Credibility’. It is also sensitive to the length of the process and that frustrations and stress can arise in this regard. It has also considered the claim that on matters concerning his harassment, involvement with the JCD and difficulties encountered from his brother and the Awami League he becomes flustered and anxious in having to relive such memories. It has considered his claim that the inconsistencies arose as a result of anxiety with the immigration situation. With regard to his anxiety and stress and it affecting his memory, the Tribunal notes there is no independent medical evidence to support this claim. Due to the significance of the actual events the Tribunal is of the view if true, even if anxious and flustered, he would be able to provide consistent evidence as to the matters outlined above. The Tribunal does not accept that any of these factors explain or excuse the concerns which, cumulatively, have led the Tribunal to find that the applicant is not a reliable witness as to these claims.

12. In making these findings the Tribunal has also considered that record keeping in Bangladesh is not advanced or as observed as in Australia. In this regard he submits being unable to recall official dates, locations and certain other specifics is not a reflection on the applicant’s credibility but rather as a result of cultural heritage and exposure to poor record keeping in Bangladesh. The Tribunal does not accept this as explaining or excuse the inconsistencies raised as the applicant was able to recall other dates and records as to his employment and residence. It also notes he is highly educated, with a [degree] and worked in a prominent [workplace] in Bangladesh as [Occupation 1]. Due to the significance of the actual events the Tribunal is of the view even if true he would be able to provide consistent evidence as to when they occurred if true. The Tribunal does not accept that any of these factors explain or excuse the concerns which, cumulatively, have led the Tribunal to find that the applicant is not a reliable witness as to these claims.

13. In making this finding the Tribunal has also considered that some information has been consistent over time, including that his brother hit him with a chair and he was harassed and threatened by 3 o 4 persons after work and fled to his friend’s medical clinic. It is also mindful he was consistent that he was involved in the JCD and involved in meetings, protests, rallies or hartels and advocating for members to join the party. However the Tribunal considers that these matters are relatively easy matters to recall and his consistency in these matters does not outweigh the significant credibility aspects outlined above and does not lead the Tribunal to change its view that the applicant is not a credible witness.

14. The Tribunal has also considered that the applicant was able to provide information consistent with independent information as to the local BNP and other candidates in his area for election, Sylhet [number], being where [Village 1] is located and Sylhet [number] where he lived and claims he voted in the 1988 election. However, while such information may be indicative of a person involved in politics in the manner claimed, his knowledge in this area does not outweigh the significant credibility aspects outlined above and does not lead the Tribunal to change its view that the applicant is not a credible witness.

15. In making these findings the Tribunal accepts that the applicant would have been able to vote in Sylhet [number] in the 2008 election even though he is registered in Sylhet [number] and draws no adverse conclusions from this.

16. In making these findings the Tribunal has considered the Certificate from JCD dated [in] February 2017, signed by [two witnesses], [senior members] of the JCD, Sylhet indicating the applicant was a member of the JCD that he was involved with political, social and cultural activities and assisting children. However on the basis of the applicant’s lack of credibility and the prevalence of document fraud[8] in Bangladesh, as raised with the applicant, as noted in the independent information, the Tribunal places no weight on this letter.

    [8]  See Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada 2009, NPL103010.E - Bangladesh: Prevalence of forged, fake or falsely acquired documents, including identity documents, professional certifications, membership cards and employment records, 26 January – Accessed 4 May 2010;  Bangladesh: Reports of fraudulent documents (2011-2015)

17. In making this finding it has also considered the letter from [Dr B], medical office of [a] Medical College. While the Tribunal accepts [Dr B] is a medical practitioner, as [Dr B] is a friend of the applicant, the Tribunal does not consider his evidence independent and impartial and is of the view it is no assistance in evidencing the truth of the applicant’s claims. Given the fundamental lack of credibility within the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal does not give any weight to this letter and its contents

18. In making this finding the applicant has considered the letter from the applicant’s mother as to the difficulties faced by the applicant and as corroborating his claims. However, as the mother of the applicant, the Tribunal does not consider the evidence as independent and impartial and is of the view it is no assistance in evidencing the truth of the applicant’s claims. Given the fundamental lack of credibility of the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal does not give any weight to this letter and its contents.

19. The Tribunal has considered the submission that it is unreasonable to accept without question that all documentation provided from Bangladesh is fraudulent based on the DFAT report. However, the prime reason for placing no weight on the documents is the applicant’s complete lack of credibility.

20. In making this finding the Tribunal has considered the representative’s submission that the Tribunal did not view the original documents when offered to do so. The Tribunal accepts that the copies submitted by the applicant and his representative are true and correct copies of the originals. However for the reasons outlined above does not place any weight on the documents submitted.

21. In making this finding the Tribunal has also considered the request of the applicant’s representative for the Tribunal to contact [Dr B] and the [senior members] of the JCD, Sylhet to confirm the documents are genuine and as to their reliability and standing. For the reasons that follow the Tribunal does not consider this a reasonable request. All of the writers of these documents are based in Sylhet, which is situated approximately 240Km from Dhaka. There is no Australian High Commission in Sylhet, only in Dhaka. To require a High Commission official to travel to Sylhet, to verify the genuine nature of the writers, their roles and the content of the information in the documents is an unreasonable request when resources are limited. Telephoning is not possible as a person cannot be certain who they are speaking to.

22. It has also considered the scar the applicant claimed he received at the hands of his brother when he was hit by the chair. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant sustained injury and has a scar on his body as claimed. However the fact that the applicant has a scar and evidence of past injuries does not outweigh the significant credibility aspects outlined above and does not lead the Tribunal to change its view that the applicant is not a credible witness as to their claims and sustained the injury and scar in the manner claimed for the reasons claimed.

23. Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, in light of its findings that he was not a reliable witness, the Tribunal has no confidence in accepting that key aspects of his claims were based on his personal or actual experiences and considers it was fabricated to create a claim to be owed protection.  On the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant was ever threatened, directly or indirectly, or faced any of the difficulties he claims at the hands of Awami League and/or Chattra League and/or the police; as he was a supporter, member, or ever involved with the JCD and/or BNP or was ever perceived as a supporters of the JCD and/or the BNP and/or perceived as being opposed to the Awami League or as the JCD and BNP are in an alliance with or associated with JI.

24. It follows the Tribunal does not accept as true his claim that he joined the JCD in 2001 or 2004, regularly attended meetings, protests, hartals, rallies, strikes for the JCD or BNP while at College, in Dhaka or ever in Sylhet. It follows it does not accept as true he worked for local candidates or promoted the BNP or JCD to new members or undertook any of the activities he claimed. It follows it does not accept as true he was threatened, harassed and tortured, ever chased with knives and weapons, or while in rallies or at any time by Awami League and Chattra League members and the police would not protect them.

25. It follows it does not accept as true there was ever a dispute with his brother [Mr A] over the family home and land in [Village 1], or that his brother has taken the land, threatened the applicant with kidnapping, torture or harm, has hit the applicant with a chair in 2004 or 2010 or had Awami League members harass and threaten him near his office in 2013 or 2010/11. It follows it does not accept as true he ran away from Awami League members in 2011 or 2013 and fled to his friend, [Dr B]. It follows it does not accept as true he was ever threatened or harassed by Awami League members acting on the advice of his brother [Mr A], or that his brother has been reporting on the applicant’s JCD/BNP activities to the Awami League or he has faced any of the difficulties claimed by [Mr A].

26. It follows it does not accept as true that his other brother, [Mr C] and his mother have ever been attacked by [Mr A] or Awami League members, and their rental home in Sylhet has been smashed and attacked by [Mr A] and the Awai League at any time after the applicant departed. It follows it does not accept as true his mother has been threatened or the applicant has been threatened via his mother or his mother was involved in protecting the applicant by talking to and disciplining [Mr A], nor were his cousin or his other brother. It follows it does not accept [Mr A] told his mother he would threaten, harm, attack or kill the applicant if he returned or has ever threatened the applicant in this manner. It follows it does not accept as true his brothers and mother had to leave their rented house in Sylhet due to the attack and threats by [Mr A].

27. It follows it does not accept as true that his brother [Mr A] fears the applicant will seek the property on the applicant’s return for any of the reason he claims , including when the BNP comes into power and will harm him on this basis.

28. It follows it does not accept he or his family was ever threatened with harm, kidnapping or death, was ever discriminated against, harassed, attacked, assaulted, attacked with knives, tortured, hit with a chair, shot at or faced any of the difficulties claimed in any manner whatsoever both in or outside his college or anywhere by the Awami League and Chattra League activists, members of the police and security forces and his brother, [Mr A]. It follows it does not accept as true he sustained any of the injuries he claims, including a scar on his arm in the incidents he claims.

29. It follows it does not accept as true that at any time he went to look for protection in Bangladesh, including in Dhaka and Chittagong. It follows it does not accept as true he travelled to [Country 3], [Country 1] and [Country 2] to seek protection due to a fear of harm at the hands of his brother, [Mr A], the Awami League or the police or the security forces,

30. It follows it does not accept that at the time of his departure he held any profile in Bangladesh with regard to being involved with the JCD or BNP and being in opposition to the Awami League .

100.   It follows based on the applicant’s lack of credibility the Tribunal does not accept as true that he fled Bangladesh as he feared being harmed or killed by the Chattra League, Awami League, their associates, members and activists or by [Mr A] and anyone acting on their behalf, including the police and security forces.

101.   It follows that the Tribunal does not accept as true that at the time he departed Bangladesh in 2014 he held any concerns for his safety or feared being harmed for any of the reasons he claims.The Tribunal rejects the entirety of the applicant’s claims.

Does he have a well-founded fear of persecution in relation to Bangladesh and meet the protection obligations under the Refugees Convention and does he meet the protection obligations under the complementary protection provisions of the Migration Act?

102.   Based on its findings as to the applicant’s credibility the Tribunal has found that the applicant was not now or never was a supporter, member, associated with, involved or perceived to be associated with the JCD or BNP or in opposition to the Awami League or faced any of the difficulties he claims for the reasons he claims. Based on the findings above it does not accept as true that the applicant and his family were or are in a dispute with [Mr A] over property, he has taken the family home in [Village 1] and land and faced any of the difficulties he claims.

103.   It follows it does not accept were the applicant to return to Bangladesh now or in the reasonably foreseeable future the applicant or his family will be killed, harmed, be physically abused, shot at, threatened, harassed, have a false case laid against him, be arrested and detained, have to go into hiding, be unable to live a normal life, be traumatized, lose the family home, be unable to work, have nowhere to live at the hands of [Mr A], the Awami League, Chattra League , police, security forces or anyone else for the reasons he claims. It follows it does not accept the police will withhold protection as they are closely associated with the Awami League, as is his brother.

104.   As the Tribunal has found that the applicant was never involved with the JCD and BNP in the manner he claims in Bangladesh and his evidence is he has not been involved while in Australia, it follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant will participate in any BNP, or JCD activities in any way on return or will suffer persecution by being prevented from being involved. It does not accept as he has not been involved in the past that he will continue to work for the JCD or BNP wherever he lives in Bangladesh which would place the applicant at any risk of harm.

105.   As a result the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant and his family face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm if he returns to Bangladesh in the reasonably foreseeable future at the hands of [Mr A], the Awami League, Chattra League, or anyone acting on their behalf or the police or the security forces, or RAB or the authorities or anyone else due to his political opinion or imputed political opinion associated with the BNP or JCD or as they are associated with JI, including his support and membership, active involvement in rallies, hartels, protests or meetings or any other political activities, including recruiting new members or because he will be viewed as in opposition to the Awami League and  the government.

106.   Similarly based on my findings above and on the information before me I am therefore not satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that there is a real risk that the applicant and his family will suffer significant harm on his return to Bangladesh at the hands of [Mr A], the Awami League, Chattra League, or anyone acting on their behalf or the police or the security forces, or RAB or the authorities or anyone else due to his political opinion or imputed political opinion associated with the BNP or JCD or as they are associated with JI, including his support and membership, active involvement in rallies, hartels, protests or meetings or any other political activities, including recruiting new members or because he will be viewed as in opposition to the Awami League and  the government.

107.   It follows the Tribunal does not accept as true that the applicant and /or his family face a real chance of persecution at the hands of [Mr A], the Awami League or the police, or anyone acting on [Mr A] behalf on account of any political opinion he or [Mr A] holds, as [Mr A] is involved with the Awami League or because there is a family property dispute or because [Mr A] has taken the family property in [Village 1] and fears the applicant will seek it back on return.

108.   Similarly based on my findings above and on the information before me I am therefore not satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that there is a real risk that the applicant and /or his family will suffer significant harm on his return to Bangladesh the hands of [Mr A], the Awami League or the police, or anyone acting on [Mr A] behalf on account of any political opinion he or [Mr A] holds, as [Mr A] is involved with the Awami League or because there is a family property dispute or because [Mr A] has taken the family property in [Village 1] and fears the applicant will seek it back on return.

Conclusions regarding the Refugees Convention   

109.   The Tribunal has considered whether the combination of each of the individual claims raised by the applicant would together create a real chance of him being subjected to serious harm in Bangladesh in the reasonably foreseeable future.  Having carefully considered the cumulative effect of these factors and attributes in light of the information and evidence before it, and given its reasons in relation to each factor, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance the applicant would face serious harm for these reasons if he returns in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

110. Based on all the evidence before it, including the applicant’s claimed past circumstances and his current personal and family circumstances and profile in Bangladesh, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious harm for any of the reasons claimed or arising on the evidence, either singularly or cumulatively, for a Convention reason, in the reasonably foreseeable future. It follows that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh for a Convention reason in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Act.

Complementary Protection

111.   The Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant is eligible for complementary protection. Findings have been made above in this regard.

112.   The Tribunal has considered whether the combination of each of the individual claims raised by the applicant would together create a real risk of him being subjected to significant harm on return to Bangladesh.  Having carefully considered the cumulative effect of these factors and attributes in light of the information and evidence before it, and given its reasons in relation to each factor, the Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Bangladesh, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in subsection 36(2A).

CONCLUSION

113. 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).

114. 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).

115. 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

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

Gabrielle Cullen
Member

Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, OttawaBGD105263.E20 August 2015 and UK Home Office, Bangladesh: Background information. Including actors of protection, and internal relocation, November 2014 at 2.11.1