1511811 (Refugee)

[2019] AATA 4985

1511811 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 4985 (15 May 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1511811

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Bangladesh

MEMBER:Ms Christine Long

DATE:15 May 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Statement made on 15 May 2019 at 3:36pm

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Bangladesh – complementary protection – political profile – Bangladesh Nationalist Party – popularity in his area – successful businessman – target for abduction and extortion – credibility issues – ordinary member and supporter – engaged in relatively low-profile activities – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2

CASES
SZGIZ v MIAC [2013] FCAFC 71

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 and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicants Protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants who are citizens of Bangladesh applied for the visas on 3 February 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visas on 30 July 2015.

3. The applicants made the present applications on 3 February 2014 after the commencement of the complementary protection provisions were introduced.  In SZGIZ v MIAC [2013] FCAFC 71, Federal Court of Australia, NSD 573 of 2013, 3 July 2013, it was held that s.48A of the Act does not operate to prevent an applicant from applying for a protection visa on complementary protection grounds while in the migration zone, where they have previously been refused a protection visa while in the migration zone prior to the commencement of the complementary protection criterion on 24 March 2012.  

4. The first, second and fourth named applicants, after arriving in Australia [in] April 2010, previously made applications for protection visas on 10 June 2010.  The applications made in 2010 were refused by a delegate of the Minister on 26 November 2010; the RRT affirmed the delegate’s decision on 15 September 2011 and subsequent appeals to the FMC, the FFC and a special leave application to the High Court were not successful for the applicants. Having regard to SZGIZ v MIAC this Tribunal must consider the application for review of the first named applicant under the complementary protection criterion.

5. In their earlier application for protection the second and fourth named applicants did not make their own claims to be refugees but applied as members of the same family unit as the first named applicant and both the delegate and the RRT made their decisions on that basis. In the Tribunal’s view as the second and fourth named applicants have never made their own claims to be refugees their applications are to be considered by this Tribunal under both the refugee criterion and the complementary protection criterion. 

6. The third named applicant who was born in Australia in [month, year] has not made an application for protection visa prior to the present application made 3 February 2014 when he applied for protection as a member of the same family unit as the first, second and fourth named applicants. Consequently his claims are to be considered by this Tribunal under both the refugee criterion and the complementary protection criterion

7. The first named applicant (referred to below as “the applicant”) appeared before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments on his own behalf and on behalf of the other applicants, including the third and fourth named applicants who are minors, born in [year] and [year] respectively. The second named applicant attended the hearing but did not wish to give evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from [Mr A] and spoke with, or attempted to speak with, three other witnesses in Bangladesh by telephone as requested by the applicant.

8. Two Tribunal hearings were conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Bengali and English languages. The hearings were held on 18 July 2018 (first Tribunal hearing) and on 9 August 2018 (second Tribunal hearing).

9. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

   CRITERIA FOR PROTECTION VISA

10. 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.

11. 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).

12. 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.

13. 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’).

14. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of 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.

    CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

15. The Tribunal has before it the applicants’ departmental files in relation to their applications for protection visas, including their applications for the visas and supporting documents, and also including a copy of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal made 15 September 2011 affirming the decision to refuse to grant the first, second and fourth named applicants protection visas. Also before this Tribunal is the applicants’ application for review to this Tribunal of the delegate’s decision made 30 July 2015 and information, statements and submissions sent to the Tribunal in support of that application.

    Claims in Application for Protection made 3 February 2014

16. In his application for protection visa the applicant claims that he was born in Dhaka in Bangladesh in [year]. He gives his religion as Islam and his ethnicity as Bengali. He indicates that he was married in Dhaka in Bangladesh in July 2005. A copy of relevant pages of the applicant’s passport issued [in] 2009 with expiry date [in] 2014 is on his departmental file.

17. The applicant indicates that he left his country legally using his passport through an international airport [in] April 2010. He states that he arrived in Australia [in] April 2010; he indicates that he had never travelled outside of his country before his journey to Australia. The applicant indicates that prior to coming to Australia he lived at an address in Dhaka, which he gives, from April 2000 until April 2010. He was educated for ten years; between January 1991 and March 2001 he was educated at [an institute] in Mirpur,Dhaka. He gives his occupation prior to coming to Australia as “business”. He indicates that he worked as owner of an enterprise which he names from March 2004 until April 2010.

18. In his application the applicant claims that he left his country and cannot return there because he feared, and continues to fear, harm from the Awami League as its supporters and members continue to target BNP members and supporters. He claims that he is a member and supporter of the BNP, the opposition party, and he fears because of his political opinion he will be particularly harmed and targeted in Bangladesh. He will face a real risk of harm because of his political opinion and will continue to face harm even if he moves to other parts of Bangladesh.

19. In a statutory declaration declared at Sydney on 1 May 2014 the applicant states that he joined the BNP as a member and  he was appointed as [Position 1] in his area in 2005; he explains why he joined the BNP namely that he was attracted by the policies of the BNP and he worked for the Party. As [Position 1] he contacted local authorities and got help from them to repair [infrastructures], [provide services] and he assisted the poor in his area; he could do these services when the BNP was in power.

20. Further the applicant states that during an election he worked for the BNP candidate by helping local BNP members to organise the BNP election meeting and conducting door to door campaigning. He states that he worked for a member of Parliament, whom he named, in his election campaigning.

21. The applicant states that from 2004 he also ran a business, which he named, which supplied materials to [a named hotel].

22. The applicant states that because of his political activities he faced intimidation and threats of extortion and harm “from local Awami League miscreants” including some people whom he named. The applicant states that on 17 February 2008 an Awamil League person whom he names demanded money from him and when he refused to pay he was abused and threatened. He said that he was again threatened on 19 February 2008 and went to the police to report the threats. After that, on the same day in the evening, unknown people fired shots at him when he was standing in front of his house. After that he went into hiding to save his life, from 29 February 2008. Later the Awami League sent a threatening letter to his father to harm him.  Both he and his father tried unsuccessfully to lodge a complaint with the local police about the shooting.

23. The applicant states that when the caretaker government declared a new date for an election he became involved in the election campaign in support of the BNP and was involved in door to door campaigning, participating in election campaigning and distributing leaflets encouraging voters to vote for the BNP. After the December 2008 election Awami League members and supporters started attacking BNP members who were involved in the election canvassing; this violence against BNP members became aggravated in mid 2009. The applicant states that on 18 September 2009 he was targeted by Awami League supporters when he was returning from the BNP office; they beat him and demanded money from him and warned he should stop working for the BNP and told him also to cease his business. They threatened to use their influence within the police department to file a false case against him and they would kill him.

24. After the incident in September 2009 the applicant’s family members advised him that Awami League supporters continued to target him and told him to leave Bangladesh. On their advice he decided to leave Bangladesh and he came to Australia [in] April 2010.

25. In Australia he has continued his involvement with the BNP.

26. The applicant claims that he will face serious harm in Bangladesh because of his political opinion and activities supporting the BNP party.

27. The applicant provided to the department a copy of a statement dated 5 May 2014 described as from [Mr B], [an office holder] of the Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Dal (BNP), Australia, in support of his application for visa. Amongst other things the writer of the statement refers to the violence endemic in Bangladesh’s political culture and states that he is not in a position to comment on the details of the applicant’s protection claims. He goes on to state however that the applicant, as an ex [Position 1] in one of the local wards in Dhaka, participated in anti government rallies and demonstrations and “according to his statement he was once attempted to kill by government backed terrorists which forced him to go on hidden and finally left the country for Australia. Under that circumstances, if he returns to Bangladesh his life could be in jeopardy” (sic).The writer states that the applicant has been involved with community activities in Australia, is now familiar with Australian culture and has displayed honesty and integrity; he can be a potential asset for Australian multicultural society.

28. The applicant was interviewed by the delegate about his claims as referred to in the delegate’s decision record dated 30 July 2015. In his interview with the delegate the applicant raised the further claims that he will be subject to extortion because he has lived in Australia for a number of years and he will be seen as a wealthy person. 

    Application for Review

29. In his application for review the applicant makes no new claims.

    Documents/information in support of application for review

30. On 5 June 2018 the applicants’ adviser sent the Tribunal the following four documents in support of the applicants’ applications. Firstly, a statement dated 8 May 2018, described as from [senior office holder] of the BNP in Australia, [Mr A]. The writer states that the applicant has been known to him since April 2010; after he arrived in Australia he joined the BNP, Australia and became a member. The writer states that in 2016 the applicant was selected as [Position 1] and that his contribution to the party is significant and well known. The writer states that the Awami League in power in Bangladesh is revengeful towards BNP and other opposition activists in the present political climate. The applicant was [Position 1] of the BNP in Mirpur Thana, Dhaka City North. “Opposition party specially BNP grass root to top leader all people are in very dangerous position”(sic). The writer states that other office bearers from the BNP (whom the writer names) have referred to the applicant. The writer states that the applicant was “suffering lots of threat including his family” and that the applicant and his family have no security in Bangladesh and “he was bound to depart Bangladesh to save their life”. Secondly, there is a letter dated 26 May 2018 described as from [a Position 2] of the BNP, Dhaka City North, [Mr C], which is in similar wording to the letter from the [senior office holder] of the BNP, Australia dated 8 May 2018. The letter dated 26 May 2018 states that the applicant who was [Position 1] of the BNP Mirpur Thana, Dhaka, was a very active leader of the Mirpur branch of the BNP, “that’s why was suffering lots of threat including his family. “He and his family have no security in Bangladesh. So he was bound to depart Bangladesh save their life” (sic). The writer states that the applicant’s contribution to the party is significant and well known.  Thirdly, there is a document dated 26 May 2018 (however 2018 is altered from 2008 on the document) described as from the BNP [office bearer], Shah Ali Thana, Dhaka Mohanagor, [Dr D], stating that the applicant was an active political member and [Position 2] of the BNP under Dhaka City North BNP; his role was organising all party programs and assisting the [senior office bearer]. The writer states that the applicant was a very active member of the BNP, Dhaka North and that he was beaten by Awami cadres a few times when he was in Bangladesh. The writer states that the applicant’s life will be threatened “under current political situation in Bangladesh”. The writer states that “As a leader of the BNP I know that at present the Awami League is running steam roller to our political colleagues and activists. Kidnapping killing and torturing on BNP activists by current ruler are very common in Awami politics”. Fourthly, there is a document also dated 26 May 2018 described as from [Mr E], the BNP [office holder] Ward [number], Dhaka Mohanagor, essentially in the same terms as the letter from the BNP [office bearer], Shah Ali Thana, dated 26 May 2018, stating that the applicant was an active political member and [Position 2] of the BNP who assisted the secretary to organise all party programs and assisted the [senior office bearer].

31. Also sent to the Tribunal on 5 June 2018 are photocopies of a number of photographs described as photographs of the applicant participating in BNP activities in Australia.

32. On 12 June 2018 the applicants’ adviser sent the Tribunal further information in support of the applicants’ application for review.

33. In a statutory declaration declared at Sydney on 12 June 2018 the applicant states that he provides information missing from his form. He states that he has another sister and names her. He states that he has a nickname [Alias 1] which is included in his form. He states that from 29 February 2008 until he came to Australia he stayed at his in law’s home in Dhaka. He states that he is an activist and a member of the Australian BNP and in 2016 he became assistant [Position 1]. He fears that he will be targeted because of his political opinion opposing the Awami League. Further, because he was a popular businessman in Bangladesh he believes he will still have that profile there and will be targeted for extortion and revenge by Awami League affiliated criminal gangs and other criminal networks. He fears also that his wife and children will be targeted and abducted out of revenge and to extort money from him. He fears also that his wife will face sexual harassment and/or violence as revenge against him.

34. In a submission from the applicants’ adviser dated 12 June 2018 it is noted that the Refugee Review Tribunal, in its decision dated 15 September 2011,  accepted claims of the applicant in relation to his BNP membership and office, that he campaigned for the BNP at the election in December 2008, that he was the victim of an extortion attempt in February 2008 and that he has been harassed and threatened in Bangladesh in the past because he was perceived to be a successful businessman with financial means and property.

35. It is submitted that country information confirms that businessmen, especially those with BNP affiliation, face attacks including abduction and extortion. It is submitted that at the next general election in Bangladesh, either at the end of this year (2018), or early next year the applicant will be targeted for extortion due to his his affiliation with the BNP and his background as a successful businessman when he was in Bangladesh, and also due to the perception of his persecutors that he is a wealthy person because he has stayed in a western country.

36. It is also submitted that the applicant is an active member of the BNP in Australia and he is involved in the Bangladeshi diaspora which is actively campaigning against the Awami League and its leader.

1. It is submitted that the applicant will face further harm in Bangladesh.

2. Lengthy references are made in the submission to country information and how it supports the applicant’s claims, including his claims in relation to his fear of extortion in his country; references are also made to relevant Tribunal decisions. It is submitted that the applicant holds views antithetic to the government and that there is a real chance that he will be considered to be an enemy of the Awami League government; he not only supports the BNP but holds a political opinion against the Awami League. The applicant’s persecutors perceive him as a leader and involved in anti government/Awami League activities. The applicant will be targeted and harmed because of his political opinion and relocation is not an option.

3. It is submitted that the applicant has “active political opinion” and has provided documentary evidence to confirm that. Due to the applicant’s activities and political opinion, especially in Australia, he will be held be seen as opposed to the instruments of government and may be regarded as an enemy of the state. References are made to the offences of sedition in Bangladesh and its punishment and it is submitted that sedition laws can be applied broadly and penalties range from fines to life imprisonment. It is submitted that the applicant will be targeted and imprisoned if he returns to his country due to his activities against the Awami League government.

4. It is submitted that having regard to the entirety of the applicants circumstances and particularly his real and perceived political affiliation there is a real risk he will suffer harm amounting to significant harm in Bangladesh.

5. It is submitted that the applicant is not an ordinary member of the BNP and he has a political profile which would attract persecutors to target him and harm him to stop his political activities.

6. Also sent to the Tribunal on 12 June 2018 are various documents in support of the applicant’s claims; these documents are described as documents provided by the applicant in support of his previous matter before the RRT. The documents provided are as follows – A copy of a document described as a general diary application by the applicant which is dated 19 February 2008 in relation to a phone call to the applicant by a person called [Mr F] threatening the applicant if he did not give him five lac. It is reported that the caller told the applicant that he would cause him harm if he did not give the caller the money and that he knew the applicant’s business organisations and his father in law’s house. There is also submitted a copy of an undated document addressed to “[Alias 1]”, threatening to shoot the addressee of the letter, and threatening his family members, if he did not speak with the writer by telephone and providing a mobile phone number for [Alias 1] to call the writer. There is submitted another document described as a Certificate, undated, on letterhead of the BNP, certifying that the applicant joined the BNP in Dhaka in 2003 as a general member and that later he was promoted to the position of “[Position 1]”. There is provided another document dated 20 June 2011 on the letterhead of Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Dal Australia, being a membership application form by the applicant for membership of the Party in Australia. There is also provided a copy of another document dated 10 March 2011, on letterhead of the BNP, Dhaka, described as from a former member of parliament, [Mr G], stating that the applicant was a dedicated activist of the BNP and played a significant role while he was in Bangladesh. The writer states that because of his active involvement with the BNP in Bangladesh the applicant faced harassment from the Awami League there and was forced to leave his motherland. The writer then states that from December 2008 the Awami League attacked BNP activists and looted their shops and houses and the Awami League evicted the BNP leader from her home; “no member of the BNP is safe in Bangladesh under the Awami League government regime”. The writer states that he believes that the applicant will be victimised by the Awami League in Bangladesh and “There is also a possibility to arrest and fear of crossfire“ in Bangladesh. The writer states that many of BNP leaders have left Bangladesh to take shelter overseas. Also provided is a copy of an undated letter described as from [Mr H], the [senior office holder] of the Bangladesh BNP stating that the applicant was a [Position 1] of [number] ward of Dhaka BNP. That writer states that applicant faced a lot of pressure from the Awami League in Bangladesh and he was threatened several times, tortured and money was demanded from him as a result of his involvement with the BNP. The writer states that since the Awami League won the elections in December 2008 Awami League “goons” have attacked BNP activists and looted their shops and houses. The writer states that the applicant has recently told him that he is in Australia and has lodged a protection application. The writer states that the applicant is an influential leader of the party who has the capacity “to arrange a big demonstration” against any political party of government and he believes the applicant will be victimised by the Awami League if he returns to Bangladesh. The writer also states that in Bangladesh the police/RAB will arrest the applicant and put him in the crossfire and to avoid this many BNP leaders have left Bangladesh “to take shelter overseas”. There is also submitted a further document dated 20 August 2010 described as from [Mr G],  former member of parliament, Dhaka, stating that the applicant is a political colleague who played a significant role in the politics of the party; he was [Position 1] of Ward [number] under Dhaka Mohanagar Committee of the BNP. The writer states, “As a Secretary of this committee I have seen him very closely. He was a dedicated activist of this committee. He was also established businessman and financial contributor of the party. His talented activities made him popular in the community.”

   Tribunal Hearings

7. At the Tribunal hearings the Tribunal spoke with the applicant about his background, including his business in Dhaka, his family and his claims about why he left his country and cannot return there. It also spoke to the applicant about the witnesses that he requested the Tribunal to speak with including how he met/ knew these witnesses and how they came to know about the matters that they addressed in their statements.

8. At the first Tribunal hearing the Tribunal spoke with a witness for the applicant, [Mr A], who attended the first Tribunal hearing. The witness provided a statement dated 8 May 2018 which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant and which is referred to above.

9. The Tribunal was asked by the applicants’ adviser to telephone three further witnesses in Bangladesh; statements from these witnesses, [Dr D], [Mr C] and [Mr E] were provided to the Tribunal by the applicant and are referred to above. The applicants’ adviser confirmed with the Tribunal that he did not request the Tribunal to contact any other witnesses and clarified that he did not request the Tribunal to speak with [Mr B] who provided a statement dated 5 May 2014 to the delegate.

10. At the second Tribunal hearing the Tribunal contacted these witnesses at the telephone numbers provided. [Dr D] essentially said that he did not know the applicant when, through the interpreter the Tribunal contacted him and named the person about whom it was calling. [Mr C] could not be reached on the number provided; a recorded message said that the number or network could not be connected. The Tribunal spoke with [Mr E] about how he knew the applicant, how his statement came to be prepared for the applicant and what the applicant’s role was with the BNP in Bangladesh. The witness told the Tribunal that he had known the applicant for 30 years as a party co worker and he said that the applicant was a dedicated worker with the BNP. When the Tribunal asked the witness what the applicant did with the party/what role he had with the party, the witness said that the applicant’s position with the party was “[Position 2]” and as such he carried out duties as assigned and he was very dutiful. When the Tribunal asked the witness more about the duties that the applicant carried out in his role with the party the witness said that for example if there was a strike the applicant would carry out any duty in relation to that strike and he attended every meeting and programme and he attended processions and gatherings.

    Post Hearing/s information

11. Following the second hearing the Tribunal sent the applicants a letter, dated 22 August 2018, pursuant to s. 424A of the Act giving the applicants an opportunity to comment on information which could be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. Particulars of the information were given as follows- the oral evidence given to the Tribunal by [Dr D], namely that he did not know the applicant, was in conflict with the applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal that this witness knew him from his affiliation with the BNP and because he used to live in applicant’s area and he was aware of what had happened to the applicant. Further the witness’s evidence was in conflict with what was in the witness’s statement dated 26 May 2018, namely that the applicant was “very well known to him”. The s.424A letter also gave the applicants an opportunity to comment on the oral evidence of [Mr E] who told the Tribunal, when it asked him what the applicant did in the BNP, that the applicant’s position with the BNP was “[Position 2]” which was in conflict with the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal that his role in the party was assistant [Position 1]. In the letter the Tribunal explained that this information was relevant to the review because from it the Tribunal may conclude that the applicant was not providing truthful evidence about his claims and this could be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.

12. On 5 September 2018 the applicants’ adviser provided two further documents to the Tribunal in support of the applicants’ application. The first document dated 3 September 2018 described as from [Mr E], BNP [office bearer], essentially states that when he was called by the Tribunal he was in the middle of work and in a hurry and he mistakenly said that the applicant was [Position 1] but in fact his position was Assistant [Position 1] and not [Position 2]. He states that BNP leaders are on the run and facing political pressure in Bangladesh and due to that there was confusion regarding the applicant’s position with the party. He further states that for that reason also there was a “typo error” in his statement when he describes the applicant as [Position 2] when giving the details of the applicant’s position with the party.  The second document provided by the applicant’s adviser is a document dated 3 September 2018 described as from [Dr D], [office bearer], Sha Ali Thana, BNP, Dhaka Mohanagor Uttar. The document is signed [in a similar but different spelling of Dr D’s name]. In the statement the writer states that he was “on the road” when the Tribunal rang, it was noisy, he was only advised that the call was from the Tribunal, not the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or from Australia, and that the call was in relation to the applicant who was not referred to by the name the writer knew him by which is affectionately “[Alias 1]”.  The writer states that he was confused when he heard a Bengali voice (the interpreter) and became suspicious that this was ploy by the Awami League; he would not have been confused if the Tribunal’s call had commenced in English which would have satisfied him he was talking to the correct person and he would have provided evidence that he had known the applicant for a long time. He did not want to expose the applicant to danger unless he was confident he was speaking to the correct person. The writer does however also state that the applicant told him he would be called by a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 9 August 2018 (when he was in fact called by the Tribunal), and he also states that the applicant reminded him on the date of the hearing that he would be called to give evidence to the Tribunal. The writer states that “I would be more than happy to speak to the Tribunal and confirm his political profile and his issues and his future harm if he returned to Bangladesh. The writer also states that he made a “typo error” in his statement about the applicant’s position with the BNP in Bangladesh; the applicant’s position was Assistant [Position 1] and not [Position 2] as he stated in his statement.

13. On 10 September 2018 the applicants’ adviser sent the Tribunal another document in support of the applicants’ claims being a document dated 3 September 2018 described as from [Mr I], BNP [senior office bearer], Dhaka Mohanagor, Uttar. This document is in almost identical terms to the document described as from [Dr D], dated (as corrected on the document) 26 May 2018, except that the sentence in the May 2018 document, “He was an active Political Member and [Position 2] of Sha Ali Thana BNP under Dhaka City North Bangladesh Nationalist Party” reads in the September 2018 document from [Mr I], “He was an active Political Member and assistant [Position 1] of Sha Ali Thana BNP under Dhaka City North Bangladesh Nationalist Party”.

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

14. Essentially the applicant claims that he left his country and cannot return there because he was threatened, intimidated and harmed and faced threats of extortion from the Awami League, its members and supporters because of his BNP political activities and affiliation with the BNP and that he will face the same problems, including from authorities, and could be killed if he returns to his country. The applicant claims that he not only supports the BNP but holds a political opinion against the Awami League.  He claims that in February 2008 he faced an extortion attempt and threats when he refused to pay the amount/s demanded and that also in February 2008 he was shot at. Police refused to assist when complaints were lodged with them by himself and also by his father. He claims he had to go into hiding and couldn’t move around openly in his country to avoid harm from the Awami League. He claimed before the Tribunal that he was in hiding at his in laws’ place after February 2008 when he was shot at until he came to Australia in April 2010 but he later claimed before the Tribunal that he was moving around to different places to avoid harm before coming to Australia.  He claims that those he fears came to his parents’ house and threatened them because of him and that these people/authorities who are from/sent by the Awami League still come frequently to his parents’ house in Bangladesh and threaten his father/parents. He claims that the Awami League sent a threatening letter to his father to harm him. He also claims that in September 2009 he was beaten and threatened by Awami  League supporters. The applicant told the Tribunal that the main problem for him in Bangladesh if he has to return there is that the Awami League people are jealous of his popularity in the area; the people love him because of his charitable works and his welfare activities and he will be killed because of this.

15. The applicant also claims that he will face harm in his country, including abduction and extortion by criminal gangs affiliated with the Awami League, and other criminal networks because he is businessman affiliated with the BNP and has a background as a successful businessman in Bangladesh, and also due to the perception of his persecutors that he is a wealthy person because he has stayed in a western country. It is also submitted that the applicant will face harm in his country because of his political profile, his BNP affiliation and activities in Australia. The applicants’ advisers also submit that because of his active political opinion and activities, including his political activities in Australia, the applicant will be perceived as “an enemy of the State” because he holds views antithetic to the government in power in Bangladesh and he may be accused of committing sedition and dealt with under the sedition laws in Bangladesh.

16. The applicant also claims that it is not only leaders of the BNP that are targeted for harm but also BNP activists and ordinary people who support the BNP.

17. The applicant also makes claims on behalf of his wife and children claiming that his wife and children will be targeted and abducted out of revenge against him and to extort money from him by those associated with the Awami League, and others. He fears also that his wife will face sexual harassment and/or violence out of revenge against him.

18. The applicants claim that they cannot get protection from the harm they fear in their country because authorities are affiliated with the Awami League, the government in power, and they cannot relocate to avoid harm there.

    Country Information

19. The Tribunal accepts that there is independent country information available which supports in a general way the applicant’s claims about the existence and prevalence of politically motivated violence both amongst, and between, the rival political parties in Bangladesh and also between party supporters and law enforcement agencies. The applicants’ adviser provided extensive country information references which highlight the prevalence of politically motivated harassment, threats of harm and violence in Bangladesh and the difficulty for those facing such harassment, threats and violence to obtain protection from harm. The country information referred to by the applicants’ advisers also refers to the occurrence of corruption, extortion and abductions in Bangladesh, including extortion and abduction aimed at businessmen by those associated with the authorities and others in Bangladesh. Further the Tribunal notes that DFAT Country Information Report Bangladesh, 2 February 2018 states that Bangladesh is prone to high levels of politically motivated violence which manifests regularly in the form of violent clashes between, and amongst, rival parties and party supporters and police. DFAT also notes that the Awami League has focused on restricting the activities of opposition political parties, in particular the BNP, which has included arresting thousands of opposition political party members and supporters, preventing opposition parties from holding meetings and demonstrations and pressuring candidates to withdraw from elections. DFAT assesses that senior members of opposition political parties (particularly the BNP) face a high risk of politically motivated arrest and legal charges and that active members of opposition political parties and auxiliary organisations (such as student wings) who participate in demonstrations face a high risk of arrest and physical violence both from security forces and party activists. DFAT notes however that ordinary members of opposition political parties and auxiliary organisations who do not engage in political activities and demonstrations face a low risk of arrest but this may vary according to location and timing: see paragraphs 3.51 to 3.62 DFAT Country Information Report Bangladesh, 2 February 2018. The  DFAT Country Information Report Bangladesh, 2 February 2018 also refers at para 5.23 to those returning to Bangladesh indicating that authorities may take an interest in high profile individuals who have engaged in political activities outside Bangladesh.

20. The Tribunal also consulted independent country information about the prevalence of document fraud in Bangladesh; in addition to the DFAT Country Information Report Bangladesh, 2 February 2018, the Tribunal consulted Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Responses to Information Request, BGD105263.E, Bangladesh: Reports of fraudulent documents (2011-2015), 20 August 2015.

1. This country information was discussed generally with the applicant’s adviser at the hearing/s who submitted that the DFAT country information only addressed a limited type of document. The Tribunal indicated to the adviser that it had also consulted and had reference to Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Responses to Information Request, BGD105263.E, Bangladesh: Reports of fraudulent documents (2011-2015), 20 August 2015 which referred to a wider range of documents obtained by fraud in Bangladesh.

2. Clearly the Tribunal must determine whether, for the  purposes of  the ‘refugee’ criterion, the applicant/s before it has/have a genuine fear founded upon a real chance of persecution for one or more of the reasons of his or her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, if he/she/they return to their own country, or, for the purposes of  s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’), whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, in this case Bangladesh, there is a real risk that the applicant/s will suffer significant harm.

   Identity and Country of Reference

3. The Tribunal accepts that the applicants are who they claim to be; their Bangladeshi passports were produced to the Tribunal at the hearings. The Tribunal finds that the country of reference for this application is Bangladesh.

   Applicant’s political activities with the BNP in Bangladesh and Australia

4. In a statutory declaration declared at Sydney on 1 May 2014 the applicant states that he was appointed as [Position 1] in his area in 2005 and as [Position 1] when the BNP was in power he got help from local authorities to repair [infrastructures], [provide services] and he assisted the poor in his area.  During an election he worked for the BNP candidate by helping to organise BNP election meetings and conducting door to door campaigning including for a member of Parliament, whom he named, in his election campaigning.

5. When the Tribunal asked the applicant at the first Tribunal hearing about his BNP activities in Australia he said that he attended the BNP office in Australia, in May 2010, about one week after he arrived in Australia, when he attended a function there. He said that he first had to engage with the BNP here in Australia and later made a written application for membership which was in June 2011 as shown in the document produced to the Tribunal on the letterhead of Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Dal Australia, headed “membership application form” and noted as made by the applicant for membership. He said that he was a [Position 1] in Bangladesh so he started going to the BNP in Australia. When the Tribunal asked him about the political activities he has engaged in since being in Australia he said that they invited him to functions, memorials and meetings and he helped out with work for them. When the Tribunal asked him more about his BNP activities in Australia he said that he helped out if there were social activities or functions with party leaders although he had no specific role to perform. He said that in Australia he then became [Position 1] in 2016 and after that he became [Senior Position 1] and as such made arrangements for programmes and functions coming up including the functions and parties during Ramadan and memorials for leaders. He agreed that what he was involved in with the BNP in Australia were mainly social events. When the Tribunal asked the applicant how often he was involved with BNP activities in Australia he said that everyone is busy in Australia, some events like Ramadan, were yearly events, and there was no time frame for events he attended in Australia; he just attended when something came up. The applicant said that he attended if there was an occasion, like the anniversary of the death or of the arrest of a leader in Bangladesh when there were protests; these activities were “just occasionally, when things came up”. When the Tribunal asked him about the protests that he mentioned he said that one of the BNP leaders was arrested in Bangladesh and he is innocent. He explained further that what they did to protest in Australia was to sit together and talk and they sent letters. When the Tribunal asked the applicant if he wrote/signed the letters or sent the letters he was referring to he said that he did not do that and was not involved with that because “that side of things” was looked after by the President and others; his job was to organise the meeting which he organised in a restaurant. The applicant said that in Australia everything is done at a slow pace but in Bangladesh things are done differently.  Here in Australia he has attended only one public event with banners which took place in April 2018 when all wings of the BNP came together at Darling Harbour when the Awami League leader came to Australia. He described the event as huge with many people attending.

6. The applicant’s witness [Mr A] who attended the Tribunal hearing told the Tribunal that he first met the applicant in Sydney from 2011. When the Tribunal reminded the witness that in his statement dated 8 May 2018 he indicates that the applicant “is personally known to me since April 2010” the witness agreed that was correct and when the Tribunal reminded the witness that the applicant had not arrived in Australia until 30 April 2010 he said that he had known the applicant from around May 2010, “when he arrived”. The witness said that the applicant came to join the BNP in Australia and they had a discussion and he got information from the applicant as to whether “he is really BNP”. He also said that he met the applicant through the Bangladeshi leader who informed him about the applicant after the applicant came to Australia. The witness said that the leader is now the Dhaka City North [senior office holder]. The witness explained that the applicant had to make a formal written application for membership of the BNP in Australia and he identified the applicant’s written application form dated 20 June 2011 which was produced to the Tribunal by the applicant. The witness said that the applicant became “associate [Position 1]” of the party in Australia in 2016 and before that time he was involved as an ordinary member of the Party. The witness described the applicant’s activities with the Party in Australia stating that he was involved when they celebrated National Day, the Party’s anniversary, and with fund raising for the Bangladesh community in Australia. The witness explained that they have links with other organisations in Australia being non profit and non political organisations involved in Bangladesh cultural programs. The witness said that in his role with the Party the applicant helped organise functions; he helped the main “[Position 1]”. The witness said that he found out from the applicant that he performed these similar functions in the BNP in Bangladesh. The Tribunal asked the witness about his statement in which he states that the applicant “was suffering lots of threat including his family”. The witness said that the applicant told him this and so did the leader from Bangladesh who is the Dhaka City North [senior office holder]. The witness said that this leader told him lots of people and activists are suffering in Bangladesh and lots of activists and leaders are under threat and have disappeared.  When the Tribunal asked the witness what the leader he spoke to said about the applicant the witness said that he was told the local police and the Awami League harass his family and are threatening them and that this was happening constantly after 2014. The family is having trouble. He also said that before the applicant came to Australia “he suffered”. The witness told the Tribunal that he spoke to the leader he mentioned in the last few weeks and he (the leader) is also under threat. The witness said that he himself also has two political cases pending against himself in Bangladesh in his area; they are all connected and suffering and are “victims”. He said that there are thousands like the applicant in the BNP in Bangladesh who are all suffering. The witness said that the applicant told him that he was a [Position 1] in Bangladesh in 2010 and the witness said that as such if he returns to Bangladesh he could “be disappeared” or killed.

7. At the second Tribunal hearing the applicant said that his correct position designation with the BNP in Bangladesh was assistant [Position 1]; he first joined the party in 2003 as a general member and then was appointed to the position in 2005. He told the Tribunal that what he did in the position in Bangladesh was in relation to [assisting] the poor as his area, Ward [number], had lots of people in slums. For example he was involved with helping people who were in need of accommodation or in emergency crises. If people were in need of emergency housing he was involved in helping the people obtain bamboo to build and helping the sick obtain medical treatment. The applicant said that as well as these activities, during elections he distributed leaflets and helped with putting up posters and was with others who wrote slogans on walls sometimes. He said that he was also involved with keeping areas clean and collecting money at the local mosque. When the Tribunal asked him when he stopped working in that role in Bangladesh he said that he did this until he left Bangladesh in 2010 but he then said the position continued until 2008. The applicant also told the Tribunal that he did not do any activities with the BNP after February 2008, when the incident occurred, but he also said that he did get involved with the Party during the elections in December, 2008 when he delivered leaflets and put up posters and was with others when they wrote up slogans on walls. He said that during the time of the elections he campaigned door to door and distributed election papers. When the Tribunal asked the applicant again about his activities with the BNP after the elections in December 2008 and before he came to Australia in April 2010 the applicant said that he was subject to threats from the Awami League and could not move around openly and after the election (December 2008) his activities with the BNP were limited. He then said however that during that time he used to go to the Party office and he arranged meetings and he had discussions with leaders and workers but he was not much involved with welfare/development work after December 2008 as the Awami League was in power.

8. The Tribunal accepts and finds that the applicant was a member and supporter of the BNP from 2003 when he was in Bangladesh. The Tribunal also accepts also that the applicant was involved in some social welfare activities with the BNP in Bangladesh. The Tribunal also accepts that during the election period in December 2008 the applicant campaigned for the Party by going door to door distributing party materials and he put up posters. The Tribunal also accepts that after the elections in December 2008 the applicant’s activities with the party were more limited because the Awami League was in power although the applicant continued to go to the Party office for some time after December 2008 and continued to attend meetings and had some discussions with Party members; this was essentially his evidence before the Tribunal.

9. The Tribunal finds that the applicant did not hold a leadership or high profile position or senior position in the BNP in Bangladesh. It does not accept as true that the applicant held the formal position of assistant [Position 1], or [Position 1], in Bangladesh, as he claims or that he was  apolitical activist.  In the Tribunal’s view this is an embellishment of his claims to give him a better chance to be granted a visa to remain in Australia.

10. The Tribunal finds that the evidence given to the Tribunal about the applicant’s position with the BNP in Bangladesh is unreliable; in the Tribunal’s view it was confused and at times conflicting. Although the applicant told the Tribunal that he was an “assistant [Position 1]” in Bangladesh from 2005, in the statements dated 26 May 2018  of the applicants’ witnesses, [Dr D] and [Mr E], the applicant’s position and activities with the Party  are described as “[Position 2] “ assisting the [senior office bearer] “organising all party programs”. When the Tribunal spoke with [Mr E] by telephone the witness said that the applicant was “senior [Position 2]” of the party who carried out his duties such as duties in relation to strikes and being active in meetings, processions and gatherings. When the Tribunal rang the witness [Dr D] in Bangladesh he essentially said that he did not know the applicant and the number provided for [Mr C], who in his statement dated 26 May 2018 described the applicant as a [Position 1] of the BNP, could not be connected. In the later statements dated 3 September 2018 from [Dr D] and [Mr E] sent to the Tribunal by the applicants’ adviser, the witnesses state that they made a “typo” in their earlier statements about the applicant’s role with the BNP in Bangladesh when they described him as [Position 2] instead of assistant [Position 1]. The Tribunal does not accept that this is a reasonable or plausible explanation for the conflicting evidence. [Mr E] states in his statement dated 3 September 2018 that there was confusion when he wrote his first statement mentioning the applicant’s position because BNP leaders are on the run and facing lots of pressure and stress. This witness however also gave the Tribunal oral evidence when it telephoned him that the applicant was a “senior [Position 2]” of the BNP in Bangladesh and described his activities as such. Also [Dr D] in his statement dated 26 May 2018 not only describes the applicant as a [Position 2] but goes on to describe his activities as [Position 2]. In the Tribunal’s view the difficulties with the evidence of these two witnesses about the applicant’s role and activities is not reasonably explained in their later statements as being a “typo”. Nor does the Tribunal accept as reasonable or plausible the explanation given in the statement dated 3 September 2018 described as from [Dr D] for why he told the Tribunal when it called him that he did not know the applicant; he states that he knew the applicant by another name, the name [Alias 1], and he thought the call from the Tribunal might be a ploy of the Awami League because the interpreter addressed him first in his language to introduce the Tribunal. In the Tribunal’s view this explanation is not reasonable or plausible given that the statement of [Dr D] dated 26 May 2018 states that the applicant “is personally very well known to me” and given also that he states in the statement dated 3 September 2018 that the applicant told him he would be called by a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 9 August 2018  (when he was in fact called by the Tribunal), and the applicant reminded him on the day of the hearing to be ready to give evidence to the Tribunal.  

11. The Tribunal finds that the evidence provided by the applicant’s witnesses, [Dr D] and [Mr E], from Bangladesh is not reliable. The Tribunal reaches the same conclusion and finding about the further evidence provided to the Tribunal on 10 September 2018 in a new statement dated 3 September 2018 from a witness, [Mr I] described as the BNP [senior office bearer]. As noted above this latter statement is in almost identical terms to the document described as from [Dr D], dated (as corrected on the document) 26 May 2018, except that the sentence in the May 2018 document from [Dr D], “He was an active Political Member and [Position 2] of Sha Ali Thana BNP under Dhaka City North Bangladesh Nationalist Party” reads in the September 2018 document from [Mr I], “He was an active Political Member and assistant [Position 1] of Sha Ali Thana BNP under Dhaka City North Bangladesh Nationalist Party”.  The Tribunal considers that this statement was given to the Tribunal in attempt to remedy the difficulties with the earlier evidence given by [Dr D] and [Mr E] and that those witnesses changed their evidence in their later statements to answer the Tribunal’s concerns that their evidence about the applicant’s position in the BNP in Bangladesh was different from the evidence that the applicant himself provided to the Tribunal. Given that the letter from [Mr I] is in almost identical terms to the letter from [Dr D] and given the finding by the Tribunal that it considers the evidence provided by the applicant’s witnesses from Bangladesh is unreliable and also given the credibility concerns that the Tribunal has about the applicant himself, the Tribunal did not telephone [Mr I] as invited in his statement or recontact  either of the other two witnesses by telephone as invited, either directly or by the provision of telephone contact numbers, in their September 2018 statements.

12. The Tribunal also considered the two statements, dated 20 August 2010 and 10 March 2011, described as from [Mr G], former member of Parliament, Dhaka,  which refer to the applicant as a dedicated activist and a [Position 1] of the BNP who was harassed by the Awami League and forced to leave his country and a statement (undated) described as from [Mr H], [senior office holder] BNP, which also refers to the applicant as a [Position 1],  and indicates that he (the applicant) was threatened several times and tortured and extorted in Bangladesh because of his involvement with the BNP and further states that the applicant is an influential leader of the party who could “arrange big demonstration against any political party of government”. The applicant told the Tribunal that he told both writers of these statements that he was applying for a protection visa in Australia and the statements were written for that purpose at his request. Given the credibility concerns that the Tribunal has about the applicant’s evidence in particular his evidence in relation to what he claims about what happened to him to cause him to leave Bangladesh, and also given the difficulties that the Tribunal has with the evidence of the applicant’s other witnesses from Bangladesh, namely [Dr D], [Mr I] and [Mr E] the Tribunal places no weight on the statements from [Mr G] and [Mr H]. The statement from [Mr H] refers to the capacity of the applicant “to arrange big demonstration against any political party in government” but the applicant himself did not mention his arranging demonstrations against the government in Bangladesh as one of his BNP activities in Bangladesh. The applicant did not request the Tribunal to contact these witnesses by telephone. The Tribunal chose not to do so as it accepts that the witnesses would say what was in their statements but this would not assist the Tribunal to overcome its concerns about the applicant’s general credibility.

13. The Tribunal also considered the statement dated 5 May 2014 described as from [Mr B], [an office holder] of the Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Dal (BNP), Australia, submitted to the department in support of the application for visa. The Tribunal finds that this statement is not reliable evidence of the facts in it about the applicant’s claims. The writer states that he is not in a position to comment on the details of the applicant’s protection claims and refers to the applicant’s statement about what happened to him in Bangladesh, namely “according to his statement he was once attempted to kill by government backed terrorists which forced him to go on hidden and finally left the country for Australia. Under that circumstances, if he returns to Bangladesh his life could be in jeopardy”. Given that the Tribunal has credibility concerns about the applicant’s evidence in relation to what happened to him in Bangladesh to cause him to leave there and given that the writer describes the applicant as an ex [Position 1] in one of the local wards in Dhaka who  participated in anti government rallies and demonstrations, which is not in accord with the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal about his designated role with the Party in Bangladesh as “assistant [Position 1]”, and, more importantly, is not in accord with the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal about his BNP activities in Bangladesh, the Tribunal places no weight on this statement. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal about his political activities in Bangladesh when asked did not include any reference to participating in anti government rallies and demonstrations. 

1. Further, the Tribunal places no weight on the undated document described as a Certificate from the BNP in Bangladesh certifying that the applicant held the position of “[Position 1]” in Bangladesh, stating that senior leaders of the BNP promoted him to that position in 2005. The Tribunal makes this finding having regard to the prevalence of document fraud in relation to various types of documents from Bangladesh, as referred to in the independent country information consulted by the Tribunal, and also having regard to the fact that the information in the Certificate document is not consistent with the applicant’s oral evidence before this Tribunal that his role with the Party was “assistant [Position 1]” which in turn is not consistent with his statement in his statutory declaration  declared 1 May 2014 that he was appointed as “[Position 1] of the BNP” in his area in 2005. When the Tribunal asked the applicant at the second Tribunal hearing to clarify his position with the Party in Bangladesh he said his designation was “Assistant [Position 1]”; he said that he joined the BNP as an ordinary member in 2003 and then he was appointed as “Assistant [Position 1]” in 2005.

2. The witness who attended the Tribunal, [Mr A], describes the applicant as a [Position 1] of the BNP in Dhaka City North in his statement dated 8 May 2018. Although [Mr A] also states in his statement that the BNP [officer bearer] and ex Dhaka city [official], [Mr H], and the Dhaka City North [officer bearer], [Mr C] told him about the applicant, when the Tribunal asked the witness at the hearing if he learned from the applicant that the applicant had a [Position 1] in Bangladesh, the witness agreed that he learned this information from the applicant. The witness told the Tribunal that the applicant said that he was a [Position 1] in Bangladesh in 2010 and as such in his view if the applicant were to return to Bangladesh he could “be disappeared” or killed. Given that the Tribunal has credibility concerns about the applicant, and also his witnesses who have given evidence from Bangladesh, the Tribunal finds the evidence about the applicant’s role with the BNP in Bangladesh from this witness, [Mr A], is not reliable evidence of that fact.

3. The Tribunal accepts and finds that the applicant attended the BNP office in Australia shortly after arriving in Australia in 2010 and formerly applied to join the Party in Australia in June 2011.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant worked as a [Position 1] of the BNP in Australia from about 2016. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s activities with the BNP in Australia in this role were mainly of a social nature, organising events being anniversaries and memorials, including in social settings such as restaurants, apart from one or two occasions in April 2018 when he gathered publicly with many others when the leader of the Awami League visited Australia; he produced copies of photographs of these occasions to the Tribunal dated 27 and 28 April 2018.

4. While country information consulted by the Tribunal indicates that senior members of opposition political parties (particularly the BNP) face a high risk of politically motivated arrest and legal charges and that active members of opposition political parties and auxiliary organisations (such as student wings) who participate in demonstrations face a high risk of arrest and physical violence both from security forces and party activists, the country information notes also that ordinary members of opposition political parties and auxiliary organisations who do not engage in political activities and demonstrations face a low risk of arrest but this may vary according to location and timing: see paragraphs 3.51 to 3.62 DFAT Country Information Report Bangladesh, 2 February 2018. Having regard to the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was and is, mainly engaged in relatively low profile welfare and social activities, from time to time, in his role with the BNP, in both Bangladesh and Australia.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant will be similarly engaged with the BNP on return to Bangladesh. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was, or on return to Bangladesh will be, or will be perceived to be, a BNP leader, a senior member of the BNP, a political activist or high profile member of the BNP in either Australia or in Bangladesh; the Tribunal finds accordingly. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s attendance at two gatherings in Australia with many others when the Awami League leader visited Australia does not/will not change the applicant’s political profile, or the perception of it, in either Australia or Bangladesh.  The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was, or will be, of any particular interest to, the Awami League and/or its supporters and/or authorities in Bangladesh for the reasons that he claims on return there; the Tribunal finds accordingly.

5. The applicant claims that ordinary people/members who support the BNP also sometimes face harm from the Awami League/its members and supporters and the Tribunal accepts that there is some country information to support this claim. Having regard to the evidence before it including the country information, while the Tribunal accepts that there is some risk that the applicant might face harm from the Awami League/its members and supporters, including as an ordinary member of the BNP,  on return to Bangladesh, the Tribunal finds  that  there is not a real risk that this applicant will face harm amounting to significant harm from those he claims to fear in Bangladesh, including as an ordinary member of the BNP or person who supports the BNP.

   Applicant’s Claims about incidents in Bangladesh

6. The Tribunal considers that the applicant gave confused and at times conflicting and changing evidence about what happened in his country, including what happened to cause him to leave there in April 2010. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has not given it truthful evidence about his claims about what happened to him in Bangladesh to cause him to leave there.

7. When the Tribunal asked the applicant when he first had difficulties in his country he said that he thought it was in February 2008 and it was when he realised he had no security in his country that he decided to leave there. He said that he was married and had a child in 2008 and he was shot. He then said that he was not shot but shot at when he was in his bedroom at his house and this was in February 2008. He then clarified that he had just left his bedroom and stepped into another room and those responsible shot at his bedroom when he was inside the house. He told the Tribunal that he had only been shot at once in Bangladesh. When questioned by the Tribunal about the shooting he told the Tribunal that the information in an earlier statement that he had been shot at on 29 February 2010 when he was in front of his house was a mistake made in that statement. He said that after the incident on 17 April 2008 when money was demanded from him he was shot at on 19 April 2008 after going to the police to report the threat and he hid at his in laws’ place from 29 February 2008 and did not leave there but stayed there essentially in hiding until he came to Australia in April 2010. When the Tribunal reminded the applicant that in his protection visa application made in February 2014 he states that he lived at the same address in Mirpur from April 2000 until April 2010 and does not indicate that he moved addresses he said that that address in his application was his own permanent address but he stayed at his in laws’ place “for a while” because of the problems; his in laws forced him to stay as they were worried about him. He explained that his in laws live in Dhaka but away from the city; it is 45 minutes travel by bus from his place to his in laws’ place.  The Tribunal reminded the applicant that in his statutory declaration declared 1 May 2014 he states at paragraph 7 that on the evening of 19 April 2008 unknown people fired gun shots towards him when he was standing in front of his house which was different from the account of the shooting that he gave the Tribunal at the hearing when he described being inside the house after just stepping out of his bedroom at the time of the shooting. The applicant said that it is true that he was shot at on 19 April 2008 and that it is true he was shot at in the bedroom when he had just stepped out of the bedroom to another room in the house. The applicant confirmed that when he states in his statutory declaration made 1 May 2014 that he went into hiding from 29 February 2008 he is referring to going to stay at his in laws’ place. He told the Tribunal that the remained there at his in laws place until he travelled to Australia in April 2010.

8. The Tribunal does not accept as true that the applicant was shot at, at any time, in Bangladesh by those he claims for the reasons that he claims. The Tribunal considers that if it were true that the applicant had been shot at in April 2008 as he claims he would be consistent about where that shooting occurred, in particular if it were the only occasion that he had been shot at, as he told the Tribunal was the case.

9. Further, in the Tribunal’s view it is not consistent with the applicant’s claims that he was essentially “in hiding” at his parents in laws’ place, as he initially told the Tribunal he was, or restricted in his movements, after February 2008 until he came to Australia in April 2010, that he claims he was campaigning door to door for his party during the elections in December 2008. Paragraph 9 of his statutory declaration declared 1 May 2014 states that after the date for the December 2008 election was declared he became involved in door to door election campaigning, distributing leaflets for the BNP. When the Tribunal discussed this concern with the applicant at the first Tribunal hearing he maintained that he remained in hiding but got in touch with the BNP through people in the area and helped them. He then said that these events were before he went into hiding at his parents in law’s place. The Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that he had just told the Tribunal he went into hiding at his parents in law’s place from February 2008 until he left for Australia and his statutory declaration refers to the door to door campaigning in December 2008 around the time of the election so clearly the door to door campaigning described by him occurred after he claims he went into hiding. The applicant maintained he lived with his father in law from February 2008 “in hiding” but then said that he visited his parents sometimes and he was involved in low key activities that were not in his statement. When the Tribunal later asked him if he was not worried about his safety in December 2008 when he was campaigning door to door he said that his political involvement is like an addiction and when he went out with people he felt safe but he was not safe.

10. The Tribunal does not accept as true that the applicant was shot at as he claims for the reasons that he claims in his country or that he was in hiding at any time or restricted in his movements for the reasons that he claims before he left Bangladesh to come to Australia in April 2010. In the Tribunal’s view if it were true that the applicant was “in hiding” or restricted in moving around in his country from February 2008 until he travelled to Australia in April 2010, as he told the Tribunal he was, because of threats from the Awami League/ those supporting the Awami League, he would not have been campaigning door to door during the elections in December 2008, handing out leaflets, and visiting the party office and attending other meetings after that time as he told the Tribunal he continued to do after 2008. He told the Tribunal that he stopped going to the party office after September 2009 but also said that he did attend the party office sometimes and he also said that he still attended some political activities including helping his wife’s grandfather with political activities sometimes after September 2009. He also said that he visited the Party Office just before he came to Australia.

11. At the second Tribunal hearing when the Tribunal was asking the applicant about other incidents that he claims occurred to cause him to leave his country he said that on 18 September 2009 when he was returning home from the BNP office he was stopped and told to leave the BNP which he declined to do. Those accosting him were abusive and threatened to kill him and he was tortured and punched and kicked. In his statutory declaration declared 1 May 2014 he also states that on this occasion money was demanded from him and that those attacking him threatened to use their influence in the police to bring false cases against him. When the Tribunal asked him more about what happened he said that they gave him another chance and a “last warning”.  Given that the applicant claims these events happened in September 2009 when he was returning from the BNP office  but his claims also were that he was in hiding after February 2008, the Tribunal asked him where he was living at that time and he then said that “I came back during the election”. He said that at that time he did not live at any fixed place but he used to live in different places. When the Tribunal reminded him that he had said at the first Tribunal hearing, namely that he went to live his with his father in law/ at his in laws’ place from February 2008 and that he stayed there until he left Bangladesh to come to Australia in April 2010 he said that the last time he had come to the Tribunal he had received news that his father in law was sick and he was upset. The Tribunal reminded the applicant that it had asked him more than once at the first hearing about going to stay with his in laws and being in hiding there until he came to Australia and he did not mention anything about having difficulties with his evidence because he had bad news and was upset although he did not mention he had a forgetful nature when the Tribunal asked him about an inconsistency in his evidence. The applicant then said that he “came back” from his father in law’s place during the election in 2008, at the end of November or early December 2008. When the Tribunal asked him where then he claims he lived in his country prior to travelling to Australia after December 2008 he said that sometimes he lived at his brother’s house, sometimes his sister’s house and also at friends’ houses and he used to live in different places,  and at no fixed place until he came to Australia. He said that the September 2009 was the last incident that happened to him and he managed to avoid further harm because he “changed places”. He said that during this time his wife lived with her parents and he visited sometimes. The Tribunal considers that the applicant changed his evidence to answer concerns that the Tribunal put to him about his evidence during the hearings. The Tribunal does not accept as true that the applicant was moving around to different places to avoid harm in his country or that he was “in hiding” at any time when he was in Bangladesh.  

12. The Tribunal does not accept as true that the applicant suffered an extortion attempt upon him in 2008 by Awami League members/supporters or others as he claims or that he received later/other demands for money/donations by way of threats to him as he told the Tribunal at the hearing/s. The Tribunal has considered the document described as a letter (undated) from those attempting to extort the applicant; that letter contains no mention of money demanded from the applicant and it is undated. The Tribunal also considered the copy of the document described as an Application for General Diary produced by the applicant in support of his claim that on 19 February 2008 he reported an extortion attempt made over the telephone to him. The general diary report of the phone call refers to the caller demanding “taka five lac” from the applicant. The general diary document does not give the date of the claimed extortion attempt; the date of 17 February 2008 for this claimed extortion attempt was given by the applicant including in his statutory declaration declared 1 May 2014, and in his evidence to the Tribunal. The applicant told the Tribunal that he first had trouble in Bangladesh on 17 February 2008; he was sent a letter and ”they” demanded money from him as he was in business and in the BNP, but he refused to pay. The Tribunal spoke with the applicant about the extortion letter document that he provided to the Tribunal. He said that he found it in his letter box and the writer provided his telephone contact number on the letter because he wanted the applicant to call him to confirm that he would pay the writer of the letter the money demanded. When the Tribunal pointed out that the copy of the letter given to the Tribunal as the claimed extortion letter itself does not mention any money demanded the applicant said that “somewhere” money is mentioned. The applicant also said that they put the letter in his mailbox and later called him about paying the money and he went to report it to police and file the general diary on 19 February. He said that the writer of the letter refers to him as “Mr [Alias 1]” because that is his nickname. While the claimed extortion letter threatens the applicant and also mentions implied threats to his sister and her husband the applicant told the Tribunal that his parents, his two sisters and one brother continue to reside in Mirpur in Dhaka; his older brother came to Australia in 2002 and resides in Australia.  Given the prevalence of document fraud in Bangladesh, as referred to in the country information about Bangladesh consulted by the Tribunal which was discussed generally with the applicant/the applicants’ adviser at the hearing, and the credibility concerns that the Tribunal has about this applicant, the Tribunal does not consider that either the document described as the application for general diary or the letter described as from those attempting to extort the applicant are reliable evidence of the facts in them.

13. Given the credibility concerns that the Tribunal has about the applicant’s evidence it does not accept as true that the applicant was accosted, assaulted, tortured, that he suffered extortion, was threatened and/or harassed as he claims for the reasons that he claims by Awami League supporters or members, or authorities supporting the Awami League, either in September 2009 when he was returning home from the Party office, or at any time.

    Applicant’s business interest/s prior to leaving Bangladesh in April 2010

14. The Tribunal asked the applicant at the hearing what he was doing/how he was employed in Bangladesh prior to leaving there in April 2010. The applicant said that he was running his business but then he said that he stopped his business in 2009 although he could not remember when it was in 2009. When the Tribunal asked him why he stopped his business then he said that he suffered political harassment and had trouble moving around on the streets. The applicant then told the Tribunal that it was correct that he stopped his business in September 2009 but he confirmed that he had renewed his business licence in 2009 for the period he was in Bangladesh, until 2010, because he thought he might not get the licence again and he might want to do business again. He said despite that licence renewal he could not go to the [client] with which he did business after September 2009. He told the Tribunal that his business was supplying goods to two major [clients]. When the Tribunal asked him if he was running his business up until he came to Australia in April 2010 he said that he had ongoing tenders and bookings but he did not seek new tenders. He said that if he had contracts to supply goods for say, three to six months, he had to make sure the goods were supplied but he was not physically involved; he finished his contracts through his suppliers. The applicant agreed however that his business was how he was supporting his family financially up until he came to Australia in 2010 but said that he was also getting some financial help from his father’s rental properties; his father helped him financially if his business was slow. His father is still getting rental income from his rental properties in Bangladesh. The applicant said that he went into hiding when he was shot at in February 2008 but he got involved with some political activities after that and was running his business too when he was “in hiding”. He said that when he was in hiding he went to his business via “different ways”.

1. In the Tribunal’s view it is not consistent with the applicant’s claims that he was threatened and feared harm from the Awami League and/or its members and supporters, including authorities that supported the Awami League, to such an extent that he claims he had to go into hiding/limit his movements/move from place to place to avoid harm after February 2008, that he continued to operate his business after February 2008, and even after September 2009 when he said he closed his business but also said that he continued to fulfil the contractual obligations of his business until he left Bangladesh in April 2010. He said that his business was operating until he came to Australia and that he supported his family from his business and business dealings until he came to Australia in 2010, noting that if his business was slow sometimes his father helped him financially. He indicates in his application for the visa that he was employed as the owner of an enterprise which he names from March 2004 until April 2010 when he came to Australia. Given his claims the Tribunal does not consider that the applicant gave a reasonable or plausible explanation for how he managed to continue running his business in his country, essentially earning his living and supporting his family, from when he said he went into “hiding” in February 2008 until he left there in April 2010 to come to Australia. The Tribunal does not accept as true that the applicant was able to operate his business to the extent he claims because he went to his business via “different ways” when he was in hiding. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s evidence that he was “in hiding” in his country, that he had to limit his movements or move from place to place to avoid harm,  and that he went to his business “via different ways” to avoid harm is not true.

   Threats to applicant’s family in Bangladesh

2. Given that the Tribunal does not accept as true the applicant’s claims about why he left his country and cannot return there it does not accept as true that the Awami League/its supporters/members/authorities have harassed and threatened the applicant’s father/parents/family members, and/or continue to do so, for the reasons that the applicant claims and/or that they continue to demand the applicant’s return as the applicant told the Tribunal at the hearings is the case. The applicant’s witness [Mr A] also told the Tribunal that he had been told by someone else, a BNP leader in Bangladesh with whom he is in contact, that the applicant’s family are having trouble in Bangladesh; he was told that they have been harassed and threatened by the Awami League and the local police force and that this has been happening constantly, since 2014. The witness told the Tribunal that he was given this information  by another person from Bangladesh; the Tribunal finds that it is not reliable evidence that these events involving the applicant’s family members, occurred. In the Tribunal’s view it is not consistent with these claims that the applicant’s parents continue to reside in Mirpur and that his father continues to earn income from the rental of apartments in an apartment block which he/the applicant’s family own; this was the evidence that the applicant gave to the Tribunal. Also, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was essentially an ordinary BNP member in Bangladesh, and has had no high profile or leadership role or position in the BNP in Bangladesh, or in Australia where his role as a [Position 1] involves mainly arranging meetings and cultural/social events occasionally according to the evidence of the applicant and his witness, [Mr A].  Given this finding the Tribunal does not consider the applicant gave a reasonable or plausible explanation when the Tribunal asked him why the Awami League/its members and/or supporters would harass /threaten his family/parents given that he left Bangladesh many years ago; he stated that they accuse his family of helping him escape in 2010. As is implicit in the findings above in this decision the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant ”escaped” from Bangladesh in 2010 as he claims for the reasons that he claims.  The applicant also said that the Awami League are doing things to everyone who is involved with the BNP and his uncles who are involved with the BNP are harassed and are being searched for too. When the Tribunal asked the applicant about his family members in Bangladesh he said that his parents, one brother and two sisters are living in Mirpur in Dhaka and they are not involved with the BNP. He said that he has an older brother who lives in Australia; he came to Australia in 2002 and he applied to stay here in Australia and then he brought his family here. The applicant also said that his uncles who live close by to his family in Mirpur in Dhaka are involved with the BNP but when the Tribunal asked if they are having any trouble in Bangladesh the applicant then said that the uncles and his aunt are not living in the one place but are now moving around, shifting locations, in hiding. The Tribunal considers that the applicant said that his uncles/aunt are not living in one place, after initially saying that they lived close by to his family home in Mirpur, to give credence to his own claims about being “in hiding” in Bangladesh before he came to Australia. The Tribunal does not accept these claims are true.

   Applicant’s claims in relation to fear of return to Bangladesh because he is a businessman affiliated with the BNP/ a businessman affiliated with the BNP with a background as a successful businessman in Bangladesh/ a person perceived to be wealthy because he has been staying in a western country.

3. The Tribunal accepts that there is independent country information available, including that provided by the applicants’ adviser, which indicates that in Bangladesh there are instances of extortion and abduction attempts on those who are wealthy or perceived to be wealthy, including BNP members, including because of their business interests. The Tribunal accepts that there is some risk that a person would be perceived to be wealthy because of a period of residence in a western country. Given that the applicant has been away from his successful business, and Bangladesh, for many years now, since he came to Australia in 2010, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real risk that the applicant will suffer extortion and abduction on return to Bangladesh because he will be viewed as/ perceived to be a wealthy businessman because he has a previous background as a successful businessman in Bangladesh. The Tribunal finds that there may be some risk that the applicant will be harmed because he will be abducted and extorted by those he claims to fear in Bangladesh due to the perception that he is a wealthy person because he has stayed in a western country, namely Australia. Having regard to the country information before the Tribunal and the evidence given by the applicant however the Tribunal finds that  there is not a real risk that the applicant  will suffer significant harm for this reason, namely that he will be perceived to be wealthy because of a period of residence in a western country; in the Tribunal’s view the country information before the Tribunal does not indicate that there is a real risk of harm amounting to significant harm for all those returning from western countries for this particular reason.

4. The Tribunal finds that there is not a real risk that the applicant will face harm amounting to significant harm in his country because he is a businessman/successful business man/businessman affiliated with the BNP, and/or person perceived to be wealthy returning from a western country, if he returns to Bangladesh.

   Claims that the applicant will face harm in his country because of his political profile, his BNP affiliation and activities in Australia.

5. Although it is submitted by the applicants’ adviser that the applicant is an active member of the BNP in Australia and he is involved in the Bangladeshi diaspora which is actively campaigning against the Awami League and its leader the evidence given by the applicant to the Tribunal mentioned only two instances in 2018 of gathering publicly with many others when the leader of the Awami League came to Australia; he also mentioned arranging meetings in social contexts such as restaurants in Australia to commemorate events and he explicitly said that he was not involved when some protest letters were sent/signed by the President and others in the Party. The applicant’s witness [Mr A] who attended the Tribunal described the applicant’s activities with the BNP in Australia stating that he was involved when they celebrated National Day, the Party’s anniversary, and with fund raising for the Bangladesh community in Australia. The witness explained that the BNP in Australia has links with non profit and non political organisations in Australia which are involved in Bangladesh cultural programs and that in his role with the Party the applicant helped organise these sorts of functions.

6. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was, or on return to Bangladesh will be, or will be perceived to be, a BNP leader, activist or high profile member of the BNP in either Australia or in Bangladesh and finds that the applicant’s activities in his role with the BNP in Australia, including when he was [Position 1], were mainly of a social/cultural nature, which he told the Tribunal he participated in “just occasionally , when things come up” , such as organising events like anniversaries and memorials, including in social settings such as restaurants. Given this, and given also that when the Tribunal asked the applicant whether he feared he would be harmed in his country if he returned there because of his BNP activities in Australia he said “no”, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real risk the applicant will face harm amounting to significant harm in his country because of his affiliation and activities with the BNP in Australia. The country information consulted by the Tribunal supports this finding; DFAT Country Information Report Bangladesh, 2 February 2018 refers at para 5.23 to those returning to Bangladesh indicating that authorities may take an interest in high profile individuals who have engaged in political activities outside Bangladesh. The Tribunal finds that the applicant was not, and is not, and will not be perceived to be, a political activist and/or a high profile member or supporter of the BNP in either Australia or in Bangladesh.

   Claims that the applicant will be charged under sedition laws as an enemy of the State in Bangladesh and imprisoned because of his BNP and/or anti  Awami League political activities and opinion, including his role/activities in Australia

7. Given the Tribunal’s findings above in relation to the applicant’s relatively low profile political/welfare/cultural activities and role with the BNP in both Bangladesh and Australia, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real risk that the applicant will be targeted as, or perceived to be, an enemy of the State in Bangladesh and /or charged or imprisoned or fined under the sedition laws applicable in Bangladesh as the applicants’ adviser submits.

   Claims that Awami League people are jealous of applicant’s popularity in his area because of his welfare activities with the BNP in Bangladesh

8. The applicant told the Tribunal that the main problem for him in Bangladesh if he has to return there is that the Awami League people are jealous of his popularity in the area; the people love him because of his charitable works and his welfare activities and he will be killed because of this. He said that he was actively involved with the BNP when he was in Bangladesh and because of the very bad situation in the country there are people there who will find him and kill him. When the Tribunal told the applicant that it had difficulty accepting this because he managed to continue  living in Bangladesh from the last incident which he claimed happened in September 2009 until he came to Australia in April 2010 and he was still involved in his business until he left Bangladesh the applicant said that he closed his business after September 2009 and he stopped going to the BNP office because leaders told him not to get involved however he helped his wife’s grandfather who is involved with the BNP with some political activities occasionally. As noted above the applicant also told the Tribunal that his business was still operating until he came to Australia and that he supported his family from his business and business dealings until he came to Australia in 2010. He also said that he still was involved in some political activities until he came to Australia and sometimes went to the Party office. While the applicant claimed that he was in hiding after February 2008 to avoid harm and that he was going to his business via different ways for the reasons given above in this decision the Tribunal does not accept that these claims are true.

9. The Tribunal does not consider that it is consistent with the applicant’s claims, namely that if he returns to Bangladesh he will face harm in his area from Awami League members and supporters who are jealous of him because of his welfare activities with the BNP, and that there are people who will find him and kill him there because he was actively engaged with the BNP in Bangladesh, that the applicant was living in his usual area in Mirpur in Bangladesh and operating his business to earn his livelihood and support his family until he left Bangladesh to come to Australia in April 2010.  The Tribunal finds that there is not a real risk that the applicant will face harm amounting to significant harm in Bangladesh because the Awami League people are jealous of his popularity in the area because of his charitable works and his welfare activities  and/or because he was actively involved with the BNP when he was in Bangladesh.

   Claims on behalf of wife and children

10. The applicant also makes claims on behalf of his wife and children claiming that his wife and children will be targeted and abducted out of revenge against him and to extort money from him by those associated with the Awami League, and others. He fears also that his wife will face sexual harassment and/or violence out of revenge against him.

11. As discussed above the Tribunal does not accept as true that the applicant left his country and cannot return there for the reasons that he claims. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was an ordinary BNP member and supporter in Bangladesh, and will continue to be an ordinary BNP member and supporter if he returns to his country, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was not and will not be a political activist in Bangladesh and that he did not hold a leadership or high profile position or senior position in the BNP in Bangladesh and will not do so in the future. The Tribunal has also found that the applicant was not, and/or will not be, of any particular or targeted interest to the Awami League and/or its supporters and/or to authorities in Bangladesh on his return there.  Further, as referred to above, given that the applicant has been away from his successful business, and Bangladesh, for many years now, since he came to Australia in 2010, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real risk that the applicant will suffer extortion and abduction on return to Bangladesh because he will be viewed as/perceived to be a wealthy businessman, including because he has a previous background as a successful businessman in Bangladesh or because he has been in Australia. The Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance or real risk that the applicant’s wife and children, the second, third and fourth named applicants, will suffer serious harm or significant harm in Bangladesh, including abduction, abduction to extort money from the applicant, sexual harassment and/or violence, from those the applicant claims to fear, out of revenge against the applicant and/or because of their association with the applicant.

12. While the Tribunal accepts that independent country information indicates that there are some instances of kidnappings and extortion attempts made in Bangladesh, including those against people with BNP affiliation, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance or real risk that the second, third and fourth named applicants will be targeted for, or face or suffer serious or significant harm in Bangladesh, either because of their association with the applicant or, to the extent that they make the claim, in their own right.

    CONCLUSION

13. As regards the applicant, the Tribunal finds that, for the purposes of  s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’), there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, in this case Bangladesh, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

14. As regards the second, third and fourth named applicants, for the purposes of the ‘refugee’ criterion the Tribunal finds that the applicants, or either one of them does/do not have a genuine fear founded upon a real chance of persecution for one or more of the reasons of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, if they, or any one of them, return to their country.  Further the Tribunal finds that, for the purposes of  s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’), there are not substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the second, third and fourth named applicants, or any one of them, being removed from Australia to a receiving country, in this case Bangladesh, there is a real risk that those applicants, or any one of them, will suffer significant harm.

15. The Tribunal is not satisfied that either the second, third and fourth named applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a). In relation to the second, third and fourth named applicant the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that either the second, third and fourth named applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

16. For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants satisfies the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they, or any one of them, is/are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(b) or (c). As they do not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, they cannot be granted the visa.

100.   For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. As they do not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, they cannot be granted the visa.

DECISION

101.   The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Ms Christine Long
Member