1506602 (Refugee)

[2016] AATA 4554

1506602 (Refugee) [2016] AATA 4554 (25 October 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1506602

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Bangladesh

MEMBER:Tania Flood

DATE:25 October 2016

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant Protection (Class XD) visa.

Statement made on 25 October 2016 at 5:19pm

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] August 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] May 2015.

3. The applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa. However, by operation of s.45AA of the Act and r.2.08F of the Migration Regulations 1994, from [in] December 2014 the application is taken to be, and to have always been, a valid application for a Temporary Protection (Class XD) visa and is taken not to be, and never to have been, a valid application for a Protection (Class XA) visa.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 4 October 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Bengali and English languages.

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. 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.

7. 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).

8. 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.

9. 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’).

10. 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 issue in this case is whether there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm for a Convention reason on return to Bangladesh or alternatively, whether there are substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk he will suffer significant harm if removed from Australia to Bangladesh.  For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    Summary of claims

11. In an entry interview held [in] June 2013 it is claimed that Awami League extortionists asked them for money and when they could not pay they burnt their car.  This happened because they had a flourishing business and had a lot of money.  They threatened his father that if they did not pay the money they asked for he would be killed.  His father is aging and he is [one of his children] which is why they targeted him.

12. In a statutory declaration attached to his application for a Protection visa the applicant claims the following:

13. He is a Bangladeshi citizen who was born on [date] in [Munshiganj].  He is a Sunni Muslim of Bengali ethnicity.

14. He fled Bangladesh because he feared for his life. 

15. His family owned and operated a successful [business] named “[name]” in his village in Bangladesh.  It was located in a prominent [location].  He worked in this family business from the age of about [age] until April 2013.

16. He cannot be certain but he believes his father opened this business in about 1996.  It was a profitable business and his family became well-known because of its success and their wealth.

17. [In] February 2013, five members of the Awami League came to their business and demanded his father pay them [amount] lakhs.  They threatened to close down their business if he failed to comply with the request.  His father explained he did not have such a large sum of money.  His father stated that as they were operating a legitimate business he didn’t understand why he was being forced to pay this money.  An argument ensued and the men left.

18. About 2 days later, the same five men returned to their business.  He was alone at the shop and they told him they had not yet been paid the [amount] lakhs they asked for.  They threatened to kill him unless his father paid the sum demanded.  He said they couldn’t afford to pay that amount and he also questioned why they were being forced to pay this sum.  The men didn’t answer his question and left the shop.

19. About 5 days later, an incident occurred involving their motorised three-wheeler.  They rented the three-wheeler to a man called [Mr A] who used it to transport people for a fee.  The same five Awami League men forced [Mr A] off the three-wheeler and then drove off with it.  It was found the following day in an area which was about 10 kilometres from their area.  It had been completely burnt and they believe the five Awami League men were responsible for this. 

20. Five or so days after [Mr A] was forced off the three-wheeler the same five men kidnapped him.  He was at the shop at the time.  He was blindfolded and driven to an unknown destination.  The journey took approximately five hours.

21. After they arrived to the destination he was taken to a room and the blindfold was removed.  He didn’t recognise where he was.  He was forced to remain in that room for about three days.  During this three day period, he was repeatedly told by different Awami League members that he would be killed unless his father paid the [amount] lakhs they had demanded.  Further, he was told that if he reported what had happened to the authorities further problems would arise.  The men called his father and demanded that he pay them [amount] lakhs.  They threatened to kill him if he didn’t comply with their request.  His father explained he did not have the money and asked for 15 days to pay it.  The men agreed to this request. Three days later the men released him because of the undertaking his father had provided.

22. His family couldn’t afford to pay the [amount] lakhs and they were certain that after the 15 days had passed the men would return and kill him. 

23. About 13 days after he had been released, he fled to [Location 1], where he remained until he departed Bangladesh [in] April 2013.  During his time there he moved frequently in the hope of avoiding detection from the Awami League members.  He didn’t remain in any house for more than two consecutive nights.  The only time he went out was to move to another house.  A smuggler made all his arrangements for him.

24. After his kidnapping his father closed down the business permanently.  He was afraid the family would continue to be subjected to threats and extortion demands. 

25. Fifteen days after he had been released an Awami League member telephoned my father and demanded he pay them the [amount] lakhs.  His father explained he could not pay and by that time he was in [Location 1].

26. In addition to being a well-known and successful family he believes his family was targeted because of his father’s close friendship with a man named [Mr B], [an official] for the BNP in their area.  He believes his father would have been perceived to be a supporter of the BNP on account of his relationship with [Mr B].  He would also have been perceived to be a supporter of the BNP because he is his father’s son.

27. He and his family support the BNP.  They were not active members of the party however they voted for the BNP during the last election.

28. His father has told him that Awami League members have called him many times, and have threatened to kill him if they find him because they haven’t paid them the [amount] lakhs they demanded.  His father has since changed his mobile number.

29. If he was to report the threats and his kidnapping he is certain the five Awami League men would quickly learn of this as they have connections to government officials.  They already warned him that reporting the threats and kidnapping would lead to further problems for them.

30. In addition the authorities will be unwilling to protect him from harm because he is or is perceived to be a supporter of the BNP along with the rest of his family.  The authorities will have no interest in protecting a person who supports the main opposition party.

31. Awami League members are located throughout the country and he could easily be located if he relocated elsewhere in Bangladesh.

32. Following his interview with the Department a post-hearing submission was provided dated 1 May 2015.  It is submitted that the applicant is unable to provide any additional identity documents because his parents did not obtain them when they were able to do so.  Because he is now in Australia he is unable to complete the procedural requirements to obtain a National identity card. His claimed identity is consistent with the remained of his evidence regarding his previous residence in Bangladesh.

33. In response to concerns raised about apparent inconsistencies in the timeline of events it is submitted that the applicant genuinely cannot remember upon exactly which date the claimed incidents occurred because of the compounding stress and anxiety caused by them.  It is noted that in his statement of claims only approximate dates have been given for this same reason.  His explanation for why he did not, and cannot, provide precise details of these events is plausible in light of what he has experienced.  The substantial elapse of time since the applicant’s experiences and between the opportunities with which he has been provided to recount those experiences, must also be taken into account.

    Evidence to the Tribunal

34. On 27 September 2016 the applicant’s representative provided the following submissions and information:

35. The applicant has provided a coherent, credible account of his experiences in Bangladesh. The Delegate’s dismissal of the applicant’s credibility for what appears to be a highly subjective view of whether he was speaking from his own personal experience is questionable.  The Delegate gave no credence to any of the applicant’s claims despite there being ample country information supporting the regular occurrence of violence, kidnappings and extortion in Bangladesh of the kind that is claimed.

36. Regarding the level of the applicant’s political profile, it is not even necessary that he actually hold a political opinion in support of the BNP but merely that he is perceived to oppose their ideals.

37. Reference is made to country information about persecution of opponents of the government of Bangladesh and it is submitted that given the nature of political violence in Bangladesh today it may be said that the level of one’s political involvement may be largely irrelevant to whether or not it is likely a person will be targeted for harm on that basis.

38. The applicant fears harm for reason of his political opinion and/or imputed political opinion; his membership of a particular social group of relatively wealthy villagers.  Country information demonstrates that both supporters and members of political parties opposing the government have been subject to persecution.

39. The Bangladeshi state has been accused of being complicit in the suppression of opposing party’s supporters. Even where the state itself does not directly target the applicant it will not take effective measures to protect him from non-state actors on account of his imputed political views.  Relocation is not a relevant alternative as the applicant fears persecution from members of the Awami League who are the ruling party and who have a presence across all of Bangladesh.

40. Were the applicant to relocate within Bangladesh, he would have difficulty finding employment due to his lack of connections in other parts of Bangladesh.  Even if he were to find a home and employment it is not reasonable the applicant should hide from those who are opposed to the BNP throughout the nation.

41. It is also submitted that there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm if he is returned to Bangladesh.

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

    Country of reference

42. By way of identification, the applicant provided the Department with a copy of a People’s Republic of Bangladesh Birth Certificate which confirms his claimed name, date and place of birth. Further he produced a letter from [an official in] Munshiganj, Bangladesh which certifies he personally knows the applicant under the name he has provided. 

43. During the Tribunal hearing the applicant was advised of the presence of a s.438 Certificate on the Departments file which is before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal advised the applicant that the document covered by the certificate is a record of interview he had with the Department in respect of concerns raised over his identity.  Having said that, the Tribunal advised that on the information before it, for the purpose of this review, it is prepared to accept his identity is as claimed.  The Tribunal indicated that therefore the issues raised in the information covered by the certificate do not appear to be of any relevance to this decision.   The Tribunal advised the applicant it has drawn no adverse inference from the documents but nevertheless invited him to comment on the matter.  The applicant made no comment.

44. On the information before it, the Tribunal accepts, for the purpose of this review, that the applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh and has assessed his claims against Bangladesh for the purposes of the Convention and also the receiving country for the purposes s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

    Credibility

45. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 4 October 2016 to give evidence.  During the hearing the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his background, family composition, his living arrangements in Bangladesh, his past education and employment, as well as the reasons he left Bangladesh and his fears of returning. 

46. Having carefully considered the applicant’s claims and responses at hearing, the Tribunal is of the view his oral evidence about several key aspects of his claims was significantly inconsistent with his written claims.     The Tribunal considers this reflects poorly on the applicant’s credibility and the Tribunal does not find the applicant to be a reliable witness.  The reasons for this finding are outlined below.

    Claimed past encounters with members of the Awami League

47. Central to the applicant’s claims is that Awami League members harassed him and his father and attempted to extort money from the family business.   The applicant was asked for details about the occasions on which members of the Awami League came to his family shop demanding money.  He said the first occasion occurred [in] February 2013 and on that day they demanded money and he and his father got into an argument with the Awami League members about this and they left.  He said that two days later, when his father could not pay the money he was kidnapped from the shop.  When asked to confirm the number of times that Awami League members came to their shop in total he said it happened twice.  The applicant was asked whether there were any other encounters with members of the Awami League.  He said that his family’s [taxi] was burnt five days after he was kidnapped.  The Tribunal asked how he learnt about the taxi being burnt and he said the driver reported it to him when it happened.  The Tribunal stated that based on his evidence it appears he might still have been held by his kidnappers at that stage and he agreed with that.  He then changed his evidence and said that the driver reported it to his father who later told him.

48. Noting the above responses, the Tribunal put it to the applicant that his oral evidence appears significantly different to his written account of events which indicates that the Awami League members came to the shop on two occasions demanding money before the three-wheeler or [taxi] was burnt and then returned to the shop about 5 days after that incident to kidnap him.  The applicant replied that he was in a panic when these events happened and he can’t keep track of the details.  The Tribunal asked him how he can be certain then that the first event happened [in] February 2013 and he said it is because that was the first time anything happened.  The Tribunal said it accepted he would have been panicked at the time if the claimed events happened but questioned why he was able to recall the events in his detailed written statement but now could not provide a consistent account of the sequence of events.  The applicant repeated that he was in a state of panic.

49. The Tribunal asked the applicant for further details about his claimed kidnapping.  He said that the same five Awami League members who came to their shop demanding money captured and blindfolded him and took him away in a microbus.  He said they drove for around five hours and then detained him in a room and told him he would be killed if the money which was demanded was not paid.  He said that later on he was allowed to talk to his father and he told his father to agree to pay the money to see if they would release him.  His father told them he would pay them in fifteen days and three days later he was released.

50. The Tribunual put it to the applicant that it is difficult to believe that the Awami League members would go to the trouble of kidnapping him and taking him to a location five hours drive away only to release him three days later without any payment being made.  The Tribunal pointed out that this is not how kidnapping for ransom generally takes place.  The applicant replied that they must have thought his father would pay the money knowing that their business was doing well.   The Tribunal pointed out that previously he had said that he and his father had argued and objected to paying the money and given this previous defiance it is difficult to accept that they agreed to release him without any surety of payment. 

1. The applicant advised the Tribunal that after the claimed kidnapping he was taken back to Munshiganj by his kidnappers.  He said from there he took a local transport to his home.  On arriving home his father told him it would be too risky for him to stay there and the following morning he left for [Location 1].  The Tribunal pointed out that his written claims state that he fled to [Location 1] thirteen days after his release.  The applicant replied that he has been asked a lot of questions about these events and it is possible an error might have been made.  He insisted that he left to [Location 1] one day after his release.

2. The applicant advised at hearing that his family in Bangladesh are not currently experiencing problems.  He said that after he left Bangladesh the Awami League members came to his house to accuse his father of not honouring their agreement but that after his father stopped doing business they no longer have dialogue with him.  The Tribunal suggested it is unlikely they will want to harm him in future given they have made no attempt to harm his father or other family members.  The applicant replied that it is because he lied to his kidnappers and he [his child].  The Tribunal noted that on his evidence his father had also lied to them and yet he hasn’t been harmed.  The applicant stated that after he left the country his father told them he couldn’t pay them the money and they would have to get it from him.  He maintained that the Awami League members remain intent on collecting the [amount] lakhs which was promised.

3. During the hearing the Tribunal advised the applicant that there is some information before it that would, subject to his comments on, or response to it, be the reason or part of a reason for affirming the decision that is under review.  Pursuant to the requirements at s.424AA of the Act the Tribunal put it to the applicant that the record of interview of his entry interview held [in] June 2013 makes no mention of the fact he was kidnapped by members of the Awami League.  The Tribunal explained that this information is relevant because his failure to mention such a significant event calls into question the validity of his claims.  The Tribunal explained that if it were to rely on the information it may find that his evidence is not credible and reject his claims, which may lead the Tribunal to affirm the decision.  The applicant was invited to comment on, or respond to, this information.  He was asked if he needed more time to do so but he agreed to respond immediately. 

4. The applicant stated that initially he thought there would be complications and things he said might be taken otherwise.  He said there were many things to say and he thought that if he mentioned everything it might be detrimental to his interests.  He said that later on he found out it was better to tell the whole story and that is when he told his lawyer everything.  The Tribunal indicated that it found this response surprising noting that it is difficult to accept he would not have mentioned such a significant and central element of his claims.  He said that he did not know what was right or wrong at the time and he didn’t want to create problems for himself.  He said that he later realised there would be no problem in telling the whole story.  The applicant’s representative added later in the hearing that applicants are not legally represented in those interviews and it appears that when he was asked why he left Bangladesh the discussion went along the lines of the attempted extortion.  The applicant’s representative asked that the Tribunal not place much weight on this omission.

5. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s submissions that due to stress and anxiety he cannot recall upon exactly which date the claimed incidents occurred.  The Tribunal has some sympathy for the submission that exact dates are difficult to recall but does not find this accounts for the lack of consistency about the claimed sequence of events.  There is no medical evidence before the Tribunal to support that the applicant is suffering from a medical condition such that his concentration and memory is impaired.  Further, the Tribunal finds it significant that the applicant was able to recall the details of events claimed in some detail in a written statement attached to his application for a Protection visa.  The Tribunal notes that the applicant had ample time to prepare for the hearing and despite knowing the details of his written claims was still unable to provide a consistent account of the sequence of events that took place.  The Tribunal is of the opinion that the inconsistencies between his written and oral claims indicate the applicant was not speaking about events which affected him personally.  Further, when the Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that he could not have been informed that the three-wheeler taxi had been burnt by the driver when he was being held by his kidnappers the applicant quickly changed his evidence to a totally different account of how this occurred.  The Tribunal considers this reflects poorly on his credibility.

6. In addition, the applicant has not in the Tribunal’s opinion provided a plausible explanation for why his written claims, which were produced in a far less stressful environment than a Tribunal hearing, state that he fled to [Location 1] thirteen days after he was released by his kidnappers whereas he now claims it was the day after his release.   The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s response that this is due to error and again, the Tribunal considers this inconsistent evidence reflects poorly on the applicant’s credibility.

7. Further, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s explanation as to why his kidnappers released him after three days without any money being paid to be highly problematic.  According to the applicant’s written claims, he and his father had twice refused to pay the money and given the alleged kidnappers were prepared to risk abducting him from a public place and driving him to a location some five hours away, the Tribunal finds it implausible they would have released him on a promise the money would be paid in fifteen days.  The Tribunal considers that if the Awami League members were so intent on getting the money from the applicant’s father they would have held the applicant for the duration of fifteen days to ensure they received it.   The Tribunal has given consideration to the applicant’s responses regarding his failure to mention the claimed kidnapping at his entry interview and the abovementioned request made by his representative.  In light of the above, the Tribunal has formed its opinion on this matter without the need to place any weight on the omission of this information during the applicant’s entry interview.

8. For these reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that Awami League members threatened and attempted to extort money from the applicant and his father, that they burnt the family’s three-wheeler or [taxi] or that they kidnapped the applicant and threatened to kill him if their financial demand was not met or that the applicant was forced to flee to [Location 1] to avoid being harmed or killed by Awami League members.  It follows that the Tribunal does not accept that Awami League members are continuing to look for the applicant in relation to these matters. 

   BNP support and the applicant’s status as a relatively wealthy villager or member of a family well-known to have run a successful business

9. When asked why he thought his family was being targeted for extortion by the Awami League the applicant stated that one reason might be that his father and mother support the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and his father is friends with, and moves around with, [an official] who is a member of the BNP.  When asked for further details about his family’s involvement with the BNP he said they are just general supporters.  He said that he personally has no interest in politics, doesn’t like any political party and has never voted in Bangladesh.   The applicant confirmed his father is still friendly with the [official].  When asked if the friendship is causing his father any problems he said he has not been told anything like that.  The Tribunal also notes that at the commencement of the hearing the applicant was asked whether he was in contact with his family and how they are doing.  He replied that he does speak to his family quite frequently and they are doing fine.  Based on this evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that if the applicant’s father is indeed friends with the [official] the relationship has not drawn any adverse attention from the Awami League.  The Tribunal considers it likely this is due to the family not being politically involved other than possibly by voting for the BNP.  In the circumstances, the Tribunal can see no reason why the applicant himself would be at risk of harm for reason of this association on return to Bangladesh.  

10. The Tribunal has considered the submission that both supporters and members of political parties opposing the government have been subject to persecution and that the level of one’s political involvement may be largely irrelevant to whether or not it is likely a person will be targeted for harm on that basis. Based on his oral evidence the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant is not even a supporter of the BNP and given his expressed lack of interest and involvement in any political activity the Tribunal is not persuaded he would be imputed to be a BNP supporter other than possibly through his father’s personal friendship with the [official]. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of this happening and even if it did his own father has come to no harm from Awami League members as a result of this association.

11. The applicant claims that another reason his family was targeted in the past is because they are relatively wealthy villagers and/or because he is from a family that is well-known to have run a successful business.  As noted above, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant or his father were targeted or harmed by the Awami League in the course of their business affairs.   Given the reasons provided above, the Tribunal finds that if the applicant’s father ceased operation of their family business it must have been for reasons other than those which the applicant claims.  In any event, the applicant stated at hearing that his family is no longer in business and now rely on [other] activities for their living. 

12. When asked to describe his family’s financial status today he said that their financial situation is far less than it was before and they now support themselves from their [other] earnings.  Also, when asked to describe his family home the applicant described a typical village house with a concrete floor and tin roof with electricity supply and well water.  While he advised his family own [property] he said this is more than some people have but less than others.  Whereas the family might have been previously better off financially, their living conditions are not claimed to be different to other villagers and nowadays their financial situation does not appear significantly different to other local land owners.  In view of this, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant’s family can currently be described as wealthy and given they no longer operate a commercial business the Tribunal is not satisfied they would be identified as successful business owners.  The Tribunal has had regard to DFAT’s country information report on Bangladesh dated 5 July 2016 which indicates that the Awami League reportedly threatens and extorts business owners in rural areas, particularly those linked to the BNP.  However, in view of his family’s current circumstances, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the applicant will be at risk of harm for this reason now or in the foreseeable future if he returns to Bangladesh.

    CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS

13. Having considered the evidence before it, both individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance the applicant will suffer serious harm on return to Bangladesh for a Convention reason.  Accordingly the applicant does not satisfy the criterion for a protection visa under s.36(2)(a) of the Act.

14. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered the alternative complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.    For the same reasons already articulated, 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 he will suffer significant harm for the reasons claimed or for any other reason. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

15. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa)  of the Act and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.

    DECISION

16. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XD) visa.

    Tania Flood
    Member