1511603 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 1257

1511603 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 1257 (19 April 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1511603

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  BangladEesh

MEMBER:Angela Cranston

DATE:19 April 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 19 April 2018 at 3:21pm

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Bangladesh – Political activity – Bangladesh Nationalist party of Jatiyotabadi Chatrodol member – No well-founded fear of persecution – Practice and procedures – Applicant notified of the hearing date – No valid reason why the hearing should be rescheduled – Tribunal made the decision on the review

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5H, 5J, 5K-LA, 36, 65,426A, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 rr

CASES
MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559
Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155

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 on [date] August 2015 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 on [date] February 2015. In his application, the applicant stated the following:

   ..I have passed the SSC [year 1] and HSC examination respectively in the years of [year 1] and [year 2]. While I was studying in [College] I was influenced by my friends who were involved in the student politics of BNP in the College. So I joined with the student wing of the Bangladesh Nationalist party of Jatiyotabadi Chatrodol (JCD). Student politics is an initial point to become a political leader for future politician in Bangladesh.

   When I passed HSC in [year 2] then I was preparing for my university admission test and by that time there was a big political movement going on by the opposition party of the Awami league to change the head of the non-party caretaker government. But the government was very much against it and this brings a lot of chaos in Bangladesh and lots of people also killed in this period of time in rival actions.

   In [January] 2007 a head of the caretaker was appointed according to the next schedule national election. Caretaker government duties are to arrange a fair and natural election for the country. Instead of arranging an election that then head of the armed forces Mr Moin Uddin appointed a head of the caretaker government who was a pro-Awami league man.

   Both of them conspired with Hasina to bring AL government into power as Hasina given them indemnity for any wrongdoing to arresting BNP chairperson Khaleda Zia and her party leaders. Consequently Moin Uddin and Fakor Uddin arrested our BNP leader Ms Zia and her two sons, Mr Tariq Zia and Arafat Rahman. Tariq and Arafat were beaten severely by the Moin Uddin goons and they required for critical treatment in overseas. Mr Tariq is still in UK for his treatment and Mr Arafat passed away while exile in Malaysia on 24 January 2015 after seven years.

   On 29th of December 2008 a national election was held led by the Fakor Uddin government. I was working [with] the Jatiyatabadi Chatrodol (JCD) in my electoral areas [for] our party candidate. I have continuously worked for the BNP [candidate]. According to the pre-plan and conspiracies by the Moin Uddin an dFakor Udidn, BNP was defeated though BNP secured more votes than AL in that election.

   After the election AL goons killed two of my political friends in our [district] who also JCD leaders of my college. Lots of JCD leaders and members also arrested by our RAB and police in that time and later some of them killed in the name encounter/crossfire.

   My parents were very much anxious about my life in Bangladesh if I continue my further education in Bangladesh I might be killed in the hand AL goons or police. So my parents arranged me to send Australia for further education.

   In August 2010 I reached Australia…

3. The delegate refused the application and the applicant applied for review.

4. On 15 March 2018 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant via his last notified email address (by email) advising that it had considered all the material before it relating to his application but it was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Tribunal invited the applicant to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing at 10.30am on 19 April 2018. The applicant was advised that if he did not attend the hearing and a postponement was not granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on his case without further notice.

5. The Tribunal confirmed that the hearing invitation was sent to applicant at the most recently advised email address.

6. The Tribunal contacted the applicant by phone on 17 April 2018 regarding his permission for an officer of the Tribunal to observe the hearing scheduled. The applicant orally indicated he would be writing to request a hearing postponement and stated he needed time to mentally prepare for the hearing.

7. The Tribunal sent an SMS hearing reminder to the applicant’s last notified mobile number on 18 April 2018 at 11:19 AM.

8. The Tribunal subsequently received a written request by email from the applicant on 18 April 2018 asking for a postponement as late as possible because of his ‘current situation.’ No further explanation was given. The Tribunal responded by email on the same day stating that it had considered the applicant’s request and had decided that the hearing would proceed as scheduled.

9. There was no other reason or detail provided from the applicant as to the applicant's failure to appear.  

10. The applicant did not appear before the Tribunal on the day and at the time and place at which he was scheduled to appear.

Assessment of whether to make a decision on the review without taking any further action

1. When the Tribunal contacted the applicant on 17 April 2018, the applicant stated he needed time to mentally prepare for the hearing and on 18 April 2018 asked for a postponement because of his current situation. Given that the applicant was advised of the hearing on 15 March 2018 and therefore was given more than a month to prepare and given he has provided no other reason or detail in relation to why the hearing should be re-scheduled, the Tribunal told the applicant that it had decided that the hearing would proceed as scheduled. In these circumstances, and pursuant to s.426A of the Act, the Tribunal has decided to make its decision on the review without taking any further action to enable the applicant to appear before it.

CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

1. 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, he or she 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.

2. 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 because the person is a refugee.

3. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).

4. Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

5. 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 the 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 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’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

Mandatory considerations

1. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken 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 relevant country information assessments 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

1. The issue in this case is whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for one or more of the five reasons set out in the Refugee Definition in Bangladesh and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her being removed from Australia to Bangladesh, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm.

2. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

3. The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is “well-founded” or that it is for the reason claimed. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant. (MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Nagalingam v MILGEA (1992) 38 FCR 191, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70.)

4. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a Bangladeshi national.

5. The claims before the Tribunal are lacking in essential detail. While the applicant stated that after the 2008 election Awami League goons killed two of his political friends, there is little in his application as to what happened to him and in particular, what happened to him between December 2008 and when he left Bangladesh.  The applicant was invited to appear before the Tribunal but did not do so.

6. As a consequence, the Tribunal has been unable to question him further as to the veracity of his claims, leaving her claims unclarified and the Tribunal's questions unanswered. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has suffered persecution in the past, nor that he has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or because of his membership of a particular social group if he returns to Bangladesh in the foreseeable future.

7. 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 s.36(2)(a).

8. 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). There is little detail in her application as to why her only option is to come to Australia. Given this and the Tribunal's inability to question him about the veracity of his claims, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

9. 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

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Angela Cranston
Member

ATTACHMENT  -  Extract from Migration Act 1958

5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

(a)severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

(b)pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

but does not include an act or omission:

(c)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

(d)arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

(a)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

(b)that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

(a)for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

(b)for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

(c)for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

(d)for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

(e)for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

…
receiving country,  in relation to a non-citizen, means:

(a)a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

(b)if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

…

5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

1. For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

   (a)   the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

   (b)   there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

   (c)   the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

   Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

2. A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

   Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

3. A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

   (a)   conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

   (b)   conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

   (c)   without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

   (i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in them practice of his or her faith;

   (ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

   (iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

   (iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

   (v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

   (vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

4. If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

   (a)   that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

   (b)   the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

   (c)   the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

5. Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

   (a)   a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

   (b)   significant physical harassment of the person;

   (c)   significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

   (d)   significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

   (e)   denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

   (f)    denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

6. In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K  Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

(a)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

(b)   disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

(i)the first person has ever experienced; or

(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L  Membership of a particular social group other than family

For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

(a)   a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

(b)   the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

(c)   any of the following apply:

(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d)   the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA  Effective protection measures

1. For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

   (a)   protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

   (i)the relevant State; or

   (ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

   (b)   the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

2. A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

   (a)   the person can access the protection; and

   (b)   the protection is durable; and

   (c)   in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

..

36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

…

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

(a)   the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

(b)   the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

(c)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

(d)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

(e)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

(a)   it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

(b)   the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

(c)   the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

…