1504023 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4696

1504023 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4696 (10 November 2016)

.

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1504023

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Bangladesh

MEMBER:David McCulloch

DATE:10 November 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 10 November 2016 at 11:26am

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 who claims to be a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for the visa [in] July 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] February 2015.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 4 November 2016 to give evidence and present arguments.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

4. 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.

5. 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).

6. 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.

7. 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’).

8. 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. The Tribunal has before it DFAT Country Report – Bangladesh, 5 July 2016, a copy of which was provided to the applicant in the hearing.

9. The issue in this case is the credibility of the applicant and whether, on his accepted claims, he fulfils the criteria for protection. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   Background and claims

10. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] March 2008 on a subclass [temporary] visa. [In] February 2009 the applicant was granted another subclass [temporary] visa which ceased [in] March 2011, following which the applicant became an unlawful noncitizen. The applicant was located by authorities [in] June 2014. The applicant applied for a Protection visa [in] July 2014.

11. The applicant provided the following information in the relevant application forms for the Protection visa. The applicant was born on [date] in Dhaka. He is of Indian ethnicity and is a Hindu. The applicant had one address in Dhaka from birth until 2008. The applicant lists having attended [number] years of education ending in [year]. He lists his occupation before coming to Australia as ‘[occupation]’. The applicant has never been married. The applicant lists no close relatives either in Bangladesh or Australia.

12. The applicant provided a written statement as part of the application for the Protection visa outlining his claims. He indicates that 85 per cent of the Bangladeshi population are Muslims. The applicant belongs to a minority group, and there is discrimination between religion, culture and race. The applicant’s childhood was not very pleasant regarding his religion. He had to go through a lot from society, at school and in areas in which he lived. Mentally, the pressure was growing. As a result, as soon as the applicant finished advanced level study in [course] his parents decided to send him to Australia. The applicant’s experience left a bad mark which is deep inside him which he lives with every day and he does not want to face the same thing again.

13. The Tribunal notes the following as particularly relevant from the interview between the applicant and the delegate of the Minister. The applicant indicated that he faces harm based on being a minority Hindu. He referred to political violence. He referred to strikes. He indicated that his parents were restricted from praying due to the difficulties. The applicant indicated that there have been particular problems in the area where his parents live. The applicant indicated that he wanted more time to provide evidence of this. The delegate declined to provide this additional time in light of the significant period since the application had been made.

14. The applicant indicated that he is not a member of any political or religious organisation. He indicated that his father is involved in his local temple.

15. The delegate put to the applicant that the fact that he had made no claim for protection when he became an unlawful noncitizen in 2011 might suggest an opportunistic intent now. The applicant had only applied following him being apprehended by the Department. This might suggest that the claim was being made to facilitate remaining in Australia for economic reasons rather than for the reasons claimed. The applicant indicated that he was not thinking properly in 2011.  He referred to not having a lawyer and the cost of advice. The delegate noted that the applicant would have had access to community legal centres and other advice.

    Request for postponement of hearing

16. On 2 November 2016, the applicant emailed the Tribunal to say that he had received the SMS reminder of his hearing on 28 October 2016 (a week before the scheduled hearing). The applicant indicated that he had not received, either by mail or email, the invitation for hearing (which had been sent by the Tribunal to the applicant by email on 5 October 2016). The applicant indicated that he was not ready to present himself at the hearing and requested a postponement of a ‘few’ months. The Tribunal determined not to grant the postponement given: the long period the applicant had had to prepare himself for the hearing, from making the application to the Tribunal on 23 March 2015; that the applicant had not indicated that he wished time to obtain new evidence; and, that the applicant did not articulate a clear basis as to why he was not ready to attend the hearing.

17. The request for the postponement was discussed at the hearing. The applicant indicated that there was no further evidence he wished to obtain, just that he was not ‘mentally’ ready. The Tribunal indicated to the applicant that, whilst it could appreciate he may have wished to have had more time from learning of the hearing, the Tribunal did not see any prejudice that the applicant would suffer as a result of the hearing continuing as originally planned. Consequently, the hearing continued.

    Independent information

18. DFAT Country Report – Bangladesh, 5 July 2016  provides the following about the treatment of Hindus in Bangladesh:

    An estimated 15 million Hindus live in Bangladesh, making the Hindu community Bangladesh’s largest religious minority group. Hindus are not physically distinguishable from the majority Muslim population. The vast majority are ethnically Bengali and speak the Bengali language.

    Hindus have made a significant contribution to Bangladeshi public life, including in politics, academia and the arts. While they have traditionally supported the AL and left-leaning parties such as the Communist Party of Bangladesh, all major political parties have fielded Hindu candidates. The current AL Cabinet has four Hindu members.

    No legal or other restrictions prevent Hindus from freely practising their faith or participating in broader society. However, Hindus – like indigenous people in the CHT – have suffered disproportionately from land appropriation, including of land abandoned by Hindus who have fled to India since 1947. This appropriation has been linked to physical attacks on Hindu communities, although these attacks are also a product of Hindus’ perceived support for the AL and resentment over the testimony of Hindu witnesses who have appeared in International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) proceedings. In the lead-up to and following the 2014 elections, JI activists killed more than two dozen Hindus and destroyed hundreds of Hindu homes and businesses, displacing thousands. Local human rights organisations have told DFAT this violence has been most prevalent in northwest Bangladesh, including Jessore, Dinajpur and Rangpur.

    The Vested Properties Return (Amendment) Act (2011) allows Hindus to apply for the return of, or compensation for, property seized under the Enemy Property Act (1965). However, Hindu communities and NGOs have complained that the Act is too narrowly defined and the application process cumbersome and convoluted, and that only a small percentage of eligible properties have been returned.

    Legal institutions have provided a pathway for members of the Hindu community to enforce their rights through public interest proceedings. In the aftermath of the 2014 elections, the High Court held that law enforcement agencies had ‘seriously failed’ to protect members of vulnerable groups, including Hindus. The government responded by providing assistance to victims and helping communities restore religious and private property damaged in the violence. On 6 April 2015, the High Court ordered the Government to explain the legality of police actions in evicting 14 Hindu families in Taltoli Upazila, Barguna District, on 12 March 2015.

    Islamic militants have periodically attacked members of the Hindu community and Hindu religious sites. The frequency and severity of these attacks, generally involving machete attacks, has increased considerably in recent times. Militants conducted IED attacks at Hindu temples in Dinajpur on 5 and 10 December 2015, injuring over 10 people. ISIL claimed responsibility for the beheading of a Hindu businessman in Gobindganj, Gaibandha District, on 8 February 2016; an attack at a Hindu temple in Deviganj, Panchgarh District, on 21 February 2016, in which militants beheaded a priest and injured two worshippers; the killing of a Hindu tailor in Tangail, Tangail district, on 30 April 2016 (ISIL reportedly claimed the tailor had ‘blasphemed the Prophet Mohamed’); the killing of a Hindu shopkeeper in Gobindoganj on 25 May 2016, the killing of a Hindu priest in Jhenaidah, southwest Bangladesh, on 7 June 2016; and the killing of a Hindu monastery worker in Pabna, western Bangladesh, on 10 June 2016.

    DFAT assesses that Hindus are subjected to moderate levels of societal violence, especially during periods of heightened political tension such as national elections. However, the risks of sporadic attacks has increased since the previous DFAT CIR published in October 2014. Those Hindus with an historical claim to land are also subjected to a moderate level of official discrimination because of the Government’s involvement in land appropriations.

19. The US Department of State Bangladesh 2015 International Religious Freedom Report provides variously as follows:

    The U.S. government estimates the total population at 169 million (July 2015 estimate). According to the 2011 census, Sunni Muslims constitute 90 percent of the total population, and Hindus 9.5 percent.[1]

    [1] US Department of State Bangladesh 2015 International Religious Freedom Report, p.2

    […]

    According to the constitution, “the state religion of the Republic is Islam, but the State shall ensure equal status and equal right in the practice of the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and other religions.” The constitution also stipulates the state shall uphold secularism by not granting political status in favor of any religion and by prohibiting the abuse of religion for political purposes and discrimination or persecution of persons practicing any religion. It also provides for the right to profess, practice, or propagate all religions, “subject to law, public order, and morality,” and states religious communities or denominations have the right to establish, maintain, and manage their religious institutions. The constitution stipulates no one attending any educational institution shall be required to receive instruction in, or participate in ceremonies or worship pertaining to, a religion to which he or she does not belong.[2]

    […]

    Religious minority communities (who were often also ethnic minorities), especially Hindus, reported land ownership disputes that disproportionately displaced them.[3]

    […]

    In August local authorities returned 14 Hindu families to their land in Barguna. Media reported a local politician and his accomplices had driven the families from their land over the preceding three years using attacks and intimidation. 

    The government again did not adjudicate any of the more than one million pending cases involving land seized from Hindus before the nation’s independence on grounds that the owners were enemies of the state. The cases have remained pending since a 2011 law allowed the prior owners of the land to appeal the seizures.[4]

    […]

    According to the human rights NGO Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), attacks targeting Hindus or their property during the year injured 60 persons, compared to 255 in 2014; destroyed 213 statues, monasteries, or temples, compared to 247 in 2014; and destroyed 104 homes and 6 businesses, compared to 761 homes and 193 businesses in 2014. ASK did not provide examples of specific attacks. The motivation for these incidents was often unclear.

    In December the Associated Press reported 10 people were injured after attackers threw three bombs at a Hindu temple during a drama performance.[5]

    [2] US Department of State Bangladesh 2015 International Religious Freedom Report, p.2

    [3] US Department of State Bangladesh 2015 International Religious Freedom Report, p.5

    [4] US Department of State Bangladesh 2015 International Religious Freedom Report, p.5-6

    [5] US Department of State Bangladesh 2015 International Religious Freedom Report, p.8

20. A Standard Q&A Report from the Country of Origin Information Services Section of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection concerning Treatment of Hindus in Bangladesh[6] reports on a number of instances of violence towards Hindus in Bangladesh in 2015 and 2016.  The report provided a table prepared by Bangladeshi human rights NGO, Ain o Salish Kendra which collected statistics on violence against the Hindu community in 2015. It refers to 60 people being injured, 213 places of worship damaged, 104 homes destroyed and/or set on fire, six businesses destroyed and set onfire.[7]  The Tribunal refers to statistics compiled by the same organisation for 2014 referred to in the US Department of State, Bangladesh 2014 International Religious Freedom Report:

    Violence directed against members of minority religious groups continued to result in the loss of lives and property. Religious freedom organizations said it was often difficult to determine to what extent the attacks were motivated by religious animosity or by criminal intent, personal conflict, property disputes, political concerns, or a combination of these factors. Members of minority religious groups often had the lowest socio-economic status and the least recourse to political means to redress wrongs done to them. The most common type of abuse was destruction and looting of religious sites and homes. Attacks against Hindus, in particular, continued throughout the year. According to the human rights organization Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK), one person was killed; 255 persons were injured; 247 statues, monasteries, or temples were destroyed; and 761 homes and 193 businesses were vandalized in violence targeting Hindus.[8]

    [6] Standard Q&A Report from the Country of Origin Information Services Section of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Treatment of Hindus BGD CI6022217035092, 23 March 2016

    [7] Ain o Salish Kendra (ASK) 2016, Violence Against Hindu Community : January-December 2015, 7 January < Accessed 10 February 2016 <CIS38A8012160>

    [8] US Department of State Bangladesh 2014 International Religious Freedom Report, p.8

    Hearing, credibility, findings and assessment

21. In considering overall the credibility of the applicant the Tribunal is cognizant of the words of Beaumont J in Randhawa v MILGEA  (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 in which he stated that ‘in the proof of refugeehood, a liberal attitude on the part of the decision-maker is called for…[but this should not lead to]…an uncritical acceptance of any and all allegations made by supplicants’. The Tribunal notes also the remarks of Gummow and Hayne JJ in Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510 at 191 where it was said that ‘the fact that an applicant for refugee status may yield to temptation to embroider an account of his or her history is hardly surprising’. The Tribunal has sought to adopt the liberal approach outlined in these cases.

22. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh, and accordingly his claims will be assessed against Bangladesh.

23. In the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant about his family. The applicant indicated that his parents are both alive. The applicant’s father works as a [occupation]. The applicant’s mother is a housewife. The applicant has [siblings].

24. The applicant indicated that the [schools] he attended in Bangladesh were private schools. When the Tribunal asked the applicant if his family were reasonably well off, the applicant indicated that they were, but that the family’s financial situation had deteriorated due to problems with the [business].

25. The applicant indicated that he progressed well in his studies at school up until [year]. However, for the school the applicant attended from [following year], he had to fund his studies himself, and this created some difficulties. However, the applicant managed to pass subjects at this school. The applicant referred to no other problems or difficulties during his school years.

1. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the practice of his religion. The applicant indicated that, in Bangladesh, he would go to Hindu festivals about 3 times a year, mainly with his [relatives]. This was his only religious observance. The applicant indicated that, in Australia, he had only been to the Hindu temple once.  The applicant indicated that, in Bangladesh, his mother used to go to temple about two times a week. Although his father was religious, he was busy with work, and did not attend temple often.

2. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he was in contact with his family. The applicant indicated that he would speak to his father about once every six months from his arrival in Australia in 2008, until 2013. However, there had been a fracturing in family relationships because his family were disappointed in the applicant. The father’s [business] was having financial difficulties. It was hoped that the applicant would be a financial help by settling in Australia and earning money to send back to the family. Given that he has not succeeded in doing this, he is now estranged from his family.

3. The Tribunal asked applicant how, to his knowledge, the family had been doing since the applicant had left. The applicant indicated that the key problem was the financial difficulties with the [business]. When the Tribunal specifically asked the applicant if the family had suffered difficulties as a result of the practice of their religion, after the applicant had left for Australia, the applicant said that they had not (at least up until 2013 when he stopped contact with them).

4. The Tribunal asked the applicant about difficulties that he had faced in Bangladesh due to the practice of his religion. The applicant responded by making references to negative comments to him made by Muslims criticising his Hindu religion. The applicant referred to no other specific difficulties that he faced.

5. The Tribunal asked the applicant if his parents faced any difficulties that prevented them from worshipping. The applicant said that there was one incident, just before the applicant came to Australia, where his parents were stopped by individuals preventing them from attending temple.

6. The Tribunal noted to the applicant in the hearing that his oral evidence did not seem consistent with his evidence to the delegate that there were significant problems in the area where his parents lived, and that the applicant wanted more time to provide evidence of this. The Tribunal noted that the delegate declined to provide time for the applicant to provide evidence of this, but that the applicant had had a very long period since then to obtain such evidence. The applicant referred to difficulties of obtaining information. He did not otherwise refer to other difficulties based on religion occurring in his home area.

7. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant’s oral evidence in hearing did not seem consistent with written claims of ongoing difficulties faced by the applicant, due to his Hindu faith, during his childhood and youth, including at school.

8. The Tribunal also noted to the applicant in the hearing that, on his own evidence in hearing, it would seem that his parents had faced no difficulties from 2008 until 2013. This is relevant to the risk that the applicant himself would face on return.

9. The applicant referred to the fact that when he was younger, the situation was quite positive for Hindus, but that things are changing. The applicant indicated that Hindus celebrate festivals in a loud and noisy fashion and this can create a negative reaction. The Tribunal notes that the indication by the applicant that the situation for Hindus in his youth was positive is inconsistent with his written claims.

10. The Tribunal provided to the applicant in the hearing an overview of the independent information referred to in this decision, noting that there are difficulties faced by Hindus in Bangladesh. Attacks occur around specific events, such as elections, and that there are sporadic attacks which are continuing. The Tribunal made reference to the statistics compiled by Ain o Salish Kendra for 2014 and 2015.  The Tribunal noted that, although these statistics indicate a number of attacks on Hindus and property, they constitute a very small proportion of Bangladesh’s Hindu population of 15 million. The applicant indicated that he could, nevertheless, be a statistic.

11. The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence in the Tribunal hearing as mostly forthright and candid. However, it is clear to the Tribunal that the applicant significantly embellished and exaggerated his written claims for protection, and aspects of his oral evidence to the delegate. In those claims, the applicant referred to ongoing difficulties through childhood, including at school, with respect to the practice of his religion, and particular ongoing problems in his home area. These were not claims that were repeated by the applicant in the Tribunal hearing. The applicant indicated that his schooling up until [year], at least, was without difficulty. The applicant indicated that the difficulty with his schooling from [year] was due to the fact that he had to fund his education himself from this point on. The applicant provided no oral evidence, in response to open ended questioning, that he faced difficulty at school due to the practice of his Hindu religion.

12. The applicant, in the hearing, made generalised claims that, on some occasions, he had faced criticism from Muslims about his religion. The applicant provided no evidence of difficulties beyond this, including no reference to being physically harmed, being threatened with physical harm, or to attacks in his area on other individuals, on Hindu homes or temples, or the applicant being prevented from attending Hindu festivals or Hindu worship.

13. As indicated, in terms of difficulties faced by his parents, in the hearing, the applicant referred only to one incident where his parents were prevented from attending temple by individuals.

14. The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s oral evidence in the hearing is most reflective of the truth of the situation. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have been the subject of some adverse comment by Muslims as to his religion. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this has extended to physical harm, threats or serious intimidation. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faced any difficulties at school due to his religion.

15. No independent evidence has been provided by the applicant of attacks on Hindus, damage to Hindu homes, or temples in the applicant’s home area in Dhaka, nor did the applicant in the hearing articulate such problems either before or after the applicant came to Australia.

16. On the applicant’s own evidence, no difficulties have been faced by his family due to their religion from 2008 until 2013, and the Tribunal finds accordingly. This is of relevance to the risk of harm to the applicant on returning. While there is no information as to any problems from 2013, because the applicant claims not to have had any contact with his family, the Tribunal is inclined to think that, if there had been significant problems for Hindus in the applicant’s local area, he would have heard about this through some means, including through friends or other relatives, or via searching media reports or other independent information. The applicant’s indication to the delegate that he wanted to provide more information concerning difficulties in his local area faced by Hindus strongly suggests evidence of such occurrences would have been provided to the Tribunal, had they occurred. The Tribunal is not satisfied there have been any recent particular difficulties faced by Hindus in the applicant’s home area.

17. Given that the way the evidence was given, only in response to probing by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has some credibility concerns with the applicant’s claim that his parents were prevented from attending temple on one occasion. However, for the purpose of this decision, the Tribunal is prepared to accept that this occurred on one occasion only.

18. The Tribunal is not satisfied, on the basis of its findings, that past difficulties faced by the applicant in Bangladesh, based on being Hindu, have constituted serious or significant harm. The Tribunal is not satisfied that verbal criticism of the applicant’s religion, without threats or other harm, constitutes serious or significant harm.

19. The Tribunal is not satisfied that one incident when the applicant’s parents were intimidated into not attending temple on its own constitutes serious or significant harm to the applicant’s parents, or demonstrates that the applicant would face a real chance of serious or significant harm if he returned to Bangladesh.

20. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant left Bangladesh because of difficulties based on being Hindu. This is not consistent with the limited adverse treatment the Tribunal has found the applicant suffered due to his Hindu religion. It is also not consistent with the fact that the applicant delayed six years in making the application for the Protection visa, including for a number of years in which he was unlawful noncitizen. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation given in the hearing that he had no knowledge of protection visas and no support. The Tribunal considers that, had the applicant fled Bangladesh based on a real chance of him facing serious or significant harm due to his religion, and had an ongoing fear of return on that basis, he would have made an application for a Protection visa at a much earlier opportunity.

21. As indicated, the Tribunal pointed out to the applicant the two sets of statistics provided by NGO Ain o Salish Kendra of deaths and injury and violence in 2014 and 2015 respectively. Those statistics refer to one death in those two years. In 2014 there were reports of 255 injuries and, in 2015, 60 injuries. In both years there are reports of damage to places of worship, homes and businesses in the hundreds. The information in the DFAT report indicates additional numbers of deaths of Hindus in attacks in 2015 and 2016.

22. The Tribunal notes that, whilst there are reports of sizeable numbers of attacks and harm against Hindus (in the case of property damage, into the hundreds, and deaths and injuries less), this needs to be seen in the context that there are 13.5 million Hindus living in Bangladesh constituting 8.5 per cent of the population. The Tribunal also notes that there are no restrictions on Hindus practising their religion and that Hindus make significant contributions to Bangladeshi public life including politics, academia and the arts.

23. The Tribunal does accept that militant extremism has increased in Bangladesh over recent years, and that incidents of attacks on Hindus and their property and temples are undiminished and increasing.

24. Nevertheless, a statistical calculation, given the size of the Hindu population, may lead to the conclusion that the chance of harm based on being Hindu in Bangladesh is remote.  However, the key is the applicant’s past and future circumstances, including taking into account independent information.

25. The absence of past serious or significant harm suffered by the applicant in Bangladesh due to being Hindu is one issue of relevance to the real chance of future serious or significant harm. However, this is certainly not determinative of the matter, given that incidents of attacks against Hindus are increasing in Bangladesh. Of considerable relevance, however, is the fact that the applicant’s Hindu family have suffered no difficulties due to the practice their religion from 2008 until 2013. As indicated, the Tribunal is also of the view that, were there significant problems faced by his family or those Hindus in his local area since 2013 that he would have provided evidence of this.

26. The Tribunal is not satisfied, on the evidence, that the area that the applicant is from in Dhaka is an area in which there have been significant and ongoing difficulties faced by Hindus, including by way of physical attacks or attacks on homes and temples.

27. On the applicant’s own evidence, he is not currently practising his religion in any meaningful way, given one attendance at temple in six years in Australia. This causes the Tribunal to find that the applicant would practice his religion in a limited way on return to Bangladesh. Indeed, the applicant’s practice whilst in Bangladesh was limited with attendance at only three events a year. The limited extent of religious practice by the applicant in Bangladesh diminishes the risk that he faces in Bangladesh due to being Hindu.

28. Based on a lack of past serious or significant harm suffered by the applicant, no evidence of difficulties faced since 2008 by the applicant’s family or problems in his home area, and the fact that the applicant is likely to practice his religion in only the most limited way, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh based on being Hindu, including taking into account independent information as to difficulties faced by Hindus in Bangladesh.

29. In the hearing, the applicant claimed that he faced harm based on the level of crime in Bangladesh. The Tribunal indicated that it would be considering the DFAT report in this respect. The Tribunal is not satisfied that this report demonstrates, nor is there any independent evidence provided by the applicant, that there is a real chance of serious or significant harm to the applicant, as an adult male, based on being a victim of crime in Bangladesh. The key risk area highlighted by the DFAT report is that of politically motivated violence. The risk in this respect relates to those involved in politics. The applicant has made no claims that he is politically involved, or would be so involved.

30. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh by virtue of being a victim of crime or as a result of political violence.

31. In the hearing, the applicant also referred to the fact that he will return to Bangladesh without family support and that, without higher education, he will not be able to obtain a job. In relation to the latter, the Tribunal indicated to the applicant that it did not accept that higher education was a prerequisite to gaining a job in Bangladesh. Whilst the Tribunal is prepared to accept that the applicant may not obtain the job that he might wish, without a higher education degree, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious or significant harm based on being unable to obtain a job. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would be unable to support himself or subsist.

32. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that lack of family support may create difficulties for the applicant, it is not satisfied that this lack of support would constitute serious or significant harm.

33. In summary, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a well-founded fear of the applicant being persecuted for a Convention reason for any of the reasons claimed, or for any other reasons.

34. In summary, the Tribunal is not satisfied 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 for any of the reasons claimed, or for any other reasons.

35. 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).

36. 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).

37. 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

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

    David McCulloch
    Member