1512938 (Refugee)

[2018] AATA 2834

1512938 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 2834 (28 June 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1512938

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Bangladesh

MEMBER:Ms Christine Long

DATE:28 June 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 28 June 2018 at 1:32pm

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Bangladesh – Imputed political opinion – Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) supporter – Fears harm – Attacks by Awami League supporters – No evidence of complaints or charges against the applicant – Credibility issues – Oral evidence defers from written claims – Decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 36, 45AA, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 208F Schedule 2

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

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

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

2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Bangladesh applied for a protection visa on 8 July 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 4 September 2015.

3. The applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa. However, by operation of s.45AA of the Act and r.2.08F of the Migration Regulations 1994, from 16 December 2014 the application is taken to be, and to have always been, a valid application for a Temporary Protection (Class XD) visa and is taken not to be, and never to have been, a valid application for a Protection (Class XA) visa.

   RELEVANT LAW

4. The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.

5. Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).

6. Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:

   owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

7. If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).

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

9. The Tribunal has before it the applicant’s departmental file which includes his application for protection visa, a recording of his interview with the delegate about his application and a copy of the delegate’s decision record dated 4 September 2015. There is also on the applicant’s departmental file a document described as a Birth Certificate for the applicant and a translation of that document. The document is dated as registered 23 October 2007 and its date of issue is 22 January 2014.

   Claims in Application for Protection Visa

10. In his application for protection visa the applicant claims that he was born in Bangladesh, Chandpur District, in [date]. He indicates that he is Sunni Muslim. He has never married. He indicates that he entered Australia as an unauthorised maritime arrival on 24 April 2013; he was granted a Bridging Visa WE 050 in May 2013. He indicates that his occupation prior to coming to Australia was as a [occupation deleted]. He states that he was in contact with relatives in his home country by telephone after he arrived in Australia.

11. The applicant indicates that he left his home country illegally by boat in April 2012. He states that he has never held a travel document.

12. The applicant indicates in his Personal Particulars Form (Form 80) that he was educated for two years between [year] and [year] at primary school in Dhaka. He states that he lived between 1984 and 1992 in [a village], Chandpur District, from 1992 until December 2005 he lived at an address which he gives in Dhaka, from December 2005 until June 2006 he lived again in [a village], from June 2006 until April 2012 he lived in Chittagong, after April 2012 he lived in [Country 1] but he does not know where. He indicates that he worked in his father’s [shop] in Mirpur, Dhaka from 1992 until December 2005 and that after a period of unemployment he worked as a [occupation] in Chittagong from June 2006 until April 2012; he indicates that he was then unemployed again (after he left his country) from June 2012 until April 2013.

13. In his Form 80 the applicant indicates that he was in [Country 1] and [Country 2] illegally after he left Bangladesh.

14. In a statement made in support of his application for protection visa the applicant states that he is Bengali, Sunni Muslim and gives his date and place of birth. He indicates that he is single and has [several] siblings; his family resides in Bangladesh. He has completed two years of education and his last occupation was a [occupation].

15. The applicant states in his statement that he worked in his father’s [shop] in Dhaka from when he was [age] years old. The family moved back to their [village] when the shop in Dhaka was closed as the business was not running well. In his village he met friends who were members of the BNP and they invited him to join BNP rallies and meetings. On the fourth rally that he attended Awami League members attacked BNP supporters but he was not involved in the fighting and left. He was attacked four to five days later in the dark by three to four people whom he believes were Awami League party members. He was attacked with a belt and a ra zor but his attackers left him when one of the villagers approached. He was taken to the doctor as he was bleeding. His friends from the BNP later attacked Awami League supporters out of revenge and “cut their veins”; the applicant was upset about this because he is not a violent person.  A few days later he was told Awami League members were going to attack him again and he saw that they were preparing to attack him with swords. They came to his house and asked his mother about his whereabouts and police also came to his house and asked for him. He learned that Awami League members had lodged a complaint about him. His father told him to move from the village as it was not safe so he moved to Chittagong. About 15 months later he learned from his sister that that the Awami League had learned where he was hiding in Chittagong as one of their supporters had seen him and told his friends in the village. He was scared Awami League supporters would come for him so he left the country.

16. He fears he will be killed by Awami League supporters if he returns to Bangladesh. Authorities will not protect him as the Awami League has lodged a complaint about him; he will be arrested on return to Bangladesh. He cannot relocate as he does not feel safe in Bangladesh.

17. The applicant was interviewed by a delegate about his claims in September 2014 and references to his responses to the delegate’s questions at interview are contained in the decision record dated 4 September 2015. 

    Application for Review

18. In his application for review the applicant makes no new claims. A copy of the delegate’s decision record and notification of decision letter were provided to the Tribunal with the application for review. In his application for review the applicant indicates that he would like to add additional documentation to his application at a later time because he needs more time to gather those documents from overseas.  No further documentation was received by the Tribunal.

    Tribunal Hearing

19. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 5 June 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Bengali and English languages.

20. At the hearing the Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had any further identity documents/documents to give the Tribunal and he said that he did not have anything from Bangladesh to give the Tribunal.

21. The Tribunal spoke with the applicant about his background and his claims including his arrival by boat in Australia, the preparation of his protection visa application, the provision of his birth certificate in support of his application for visa, his family in Bangladesh, his brother who is working in [Country 3], where he (the applicant) lived when he resided in his country, his decision to come to Australia, his work as a [occupation] business in Chittagong for about 6 years prior to coming to Australia, what happened to him in his village to cause him to leave there and go to stay in Chittagong, why he left Chittagong six years later and travelled to [Country 1], his stay in [Country 1] for about 11 months prior to coming to Australia, his inability to mention to anyone in [Country 2] when he was there for about one month about why he left his country,  his claim that he has been involved with  BNP events in Australia since he arrived, why he cannot return to Bangladesh, his claim that there is a complaint/case filed against him in Bangladesh although he has been unable to get a copy of any documents relating to that complaint/case, his claim that he could be wrongly accused of things involving the business of drugs in Bangladesh if he goes back there, his claim that he cannot be sure that his life will be safe in Bangladesh.

    FINDINGS AND REASONS

22. Essentially the applicant claims that he left his country and cannot return there because he was and will be harmed and threatened by Awami League members and supporters because he is a supporter of the BNP and also because in his village/local area he was attacked and threatened with harm by Awami League members/supporters out of revenge following clashes and fights between Awami League supporters and BNP supporters. He claims that Awami League supporters and BNP supporters clashed because of him, including because he chose to join the BNP instead of the Awami League. He also claims that police visited his house and a charge/complaint was filed against him by Awami League members/supporters. He claims that if he returns to his country he could be threatened, physically harmed, or killed by Awami League supporters, including those from his village who continue to look for him, and also that charges/false charges could be brought against him, including charges relating to the “business of drugs”. He claims that he moved from his village in around mid 2006 to avoid harm in his village, after a period of between four days to a week living in hiding at his sister’s place, and went to live in hiding in Chittagong where he remained, and worked, for six years until April 2012. He claims that he then left his country in April 2012 to travel, illegally, to Australia via [Country 1] and [Country 2], with the help of a “broker”; he left his country because he became aware that those he feared in his village knew where he was and were looking for him and he felt unsafe remaining in Bangladesh. He claims that he does not know where he stayed in [Country 1] for about eleven months, or where he was in [Country 2] for about one month, before he came to Australia because this was all arranged by the “broker”.  

    Country Information

23. The Tribunal accepts that there is independent country information available which indicates that the security situation in Bangladesh is volatile, that there is sometimes politically motivated violence there and that there are often clashes between members and supporters of rival parties and between party supporters and law enforcement agencies. The Tribunal also accepts that under the current Awami League government senior members of the BNP face a high risk of politically motivated arrest and violence both from security forces and ruling party activists: see DFAT Country Information Reports, Bangladesh, 2 February 2018, 5 July 2016, 20 October 2014. Clearly however the Tribunal must determine whether, for the purposes of the ‘refugee’ criterion, the applicant before it has a genuine fear founded upon a real chance of persecution for one or more of the reasons of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, if he returns to Bangladesh, 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 will suffer significant harm.

    Identity and Country of Reference

24. For the purposes of this decision, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is who he claims to be. He arrived in Australia by boat as an unauthorised person towards the end of April 2013. He indicates in his protection visa application that he has never held any passport or travel document and he also told the Tribunal that he had never held a birth certificate or passport previously and had never travelled outside Bangladesh before he left there in 2012 on his way to Australia. The Tribunal finds that at the department’s request for documentary evidence of his identity, and in support of his application for protection visa, he produced to the department a document described as a certified copy of his birth certificate plus a translation of that document; this document and its translation was received at the Department on 3 August 2015. When the Tribunal asked him about this document which is dated as issued on 22 January 2014 he said that his lawyer asked for it and he did not have it. He told his sister and she arranged it because he told her his visa application would be denied without it. He later said that his parents are old and weak but his sister managed to get his birth certificate; she took his father to the “Chairman” who is in the village and the document was signed by him. His family/sister sent the document to him in Australia by courier.

25. The Tribunal finds that the country of reference for this application is Bangladesh.

    Applicant’s places of residence in Bangladesh and his travel to [Country 1] and [Country 2]

26. The Tribunal finds that the applicant lived in his [village], in Chandpur from his birth in [year] until 1992, and that he then went to live in Dhaka with his family from December 1992 until December 2005. He confirmed these details which are in his application for visa with the Tribunal at the hearing; he told the Tribunal that his village in Chandpur is where the family is from and where he grew up. He said that when he was [age] years old the family moved to Dhaka where his father had a business, a shop; his father always had a business in Dhaka. He said that the business closed however at the end of 2005 because there were losses in the business and he/the family moved back to the village in Chandpur at that time, at the end of 2005. The Tribunal accepts this evidence.

27. The Tribunal finds that at the end of 2005 the applicant moved back to his village in Chandpur and remained living there with his family until around mid 2006 when he moved to live in Chittagong until around April 2012. The Tribunal finds that in his village the applicant was unemployed and that when he went to Chittagong he found work there as a [occupation] soon after arriving and that he worked in this employment in Chittagong for about 6 years when he then left Bangladesh. This was his evidence to the Tribunal. He confirmed with the Tribunal the details in his application for visa that at this time he stayed in his village for some months only after returning there from Dhaka, until about mid 2006, during which time he was unemployed and then he left his village again in mid 2006 and moved to Chittagong. He told the Tribunal that he remained living in Chittagong for approximately six years, until about April 2012 working as a [occupation] and then he left Bangladesh. The Tribunal accepts this evidence.

28. The Tribunal finds that the applicant left Bangladesh around April 2012, that he spent about eleven months in [Country 1] and a month in [Country 2] before coming to Australia towards the end of April 2013. This was the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal.

    Applicant’s credibility

29. The Tribunal does not accept as true however that the applicant left his country and cannot return there for the reasons that he claims, including because he supports the BNP. It does not accept as true that the applicant feared or fears harm in his country, or cannot return to his country, for the reasons that he claims, including his claim that Awami League members/supporters are looking for him to harm him, that a charge or complaint has been made against him by the Awami League and that police came to his home looking for him, and/or that on return to Bangladesh he could face charges/false charges, including charges in relation to the “business of drugs”. The Tribunal does not accept as true that the applicant was, or will be, threatened, ill treated and/or harmed in his country, or that the applicant went into hiding at any time in his country to avoid harm there, for the reasons that he claims.

30. In assessing the applicant’s credibility about his claims the Tribunal has taken into account the information in his protection visa application that he has limited formal education, and his evidence at the hearing that he is not educated, but this does not answer the Tribunal’s concerns about the unreliability of the applicant’s evidence.

    Applicant’s claimed political activities and his departure from his village in 2006

31. The Tribunal does not accept as true the applicant’s claims that he left his village about mid 2006 for the reasons that he claims, namely that he left the village because Awami League members were looking for him to harm him, out of revenge, following fights and clashes between the BNP and the Awami  League where Awami League members were injured, and also because he chose  not to join/follow the Awami League but chose instead to join/follow the BNP after he returned to his village from Dhaka in 2006. The Tribunal also does not accept the applicant’s claim that there was a charge/complaint made against him by the Awami League following the fights and clashes and/or that police were looking for him at his house for that reason. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was in hiding in his village at his sister’s house for a time prior to moving to Chittagong. 

1. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was involved with the BNP in his village for about three months because he was just getting involved and he had to leave because “all this happened”. He said that he joined the BNP club instead of the Awami League club because he liked the political beliefs of the BNP. When the Tribunal asked him about the political beliefs that attracted him to the BNP he gave very general answers only, repeating that they looked after the poor, that they try to keep their promises like providing things to the clubs and working for roads. When the Tribunal asked him more about the BNP he said that the founder was keen on the needs of the poor, lots of things impressed him, they helped unemployed to get jobs. When the Tribunal asked him about his activities with the BNP he said that he played games at the club and he only went to one rally; he said that rallies and meetings are the same thing in that leaders speak at the rallies. When the Tribunal later asked him more about his BNP activities he said that he went to two rallies and leaders spoke. He described two fights held at the two rallies stating that there was a really bad fight at the second rally and they were fighting over him. He said that after the second rally there was an attack on him when he was going home from the club in the dark and he was stabbed; they wanted to kill him. When the Tribunal asked him if he went to the police at that time about this attack he said that he didn’t report this to the police because he did not think it was a big issue and he was not obviously hurt.  He said there was then a bigger fight after that when Awami League people were injured and after that Awami League supporters were looking for him. When the Tribunal pointed out to him that in his statement made in support of his application for protection visa he refers to the fighting beginning at the fourth rally he attended he then said that there were small rallies and that there were fights at the two rallies. The Tribunal considers that the applicant changed or adjusted his evidence to answer the Tribunal’s concerns about what he told the Tribunal. Similarly he told the Tribunal that to avoid being found and harmed by the Awami League, he went into hiding at his sister’s place for about a week and that his sister’s place was about five to six kilometres away from his home and he learned that “they” had sent the police to look for him at his house. When the Tribunal queried how he managed to remain in his village about five to six kilometres away from his family home if police were looking for him he then said that he left the village straight away after he found out about the police coming to his home and he was only at his sister’s house perhaps four maybe five or six days. His claim about being in hiding at his sister’s house in his village is not in his application for protection visa or the statement made in support of that application.  

2. When the Tribunal asked the applicant more about what happened in his village to cause him to leave there he said that they sent the police to look for him and he thinks they filed a case against him “but I’m not too sure”.  When the Tribunal suggested that he might be speculating about this he then said that there would have to be a case against him and that he was 90% sure there was a case. When the Tribunal queried how he managed to remain in his country for many years, until 2012, without having difficulties after 2006 if there was a case against him, and without knowing whether or not there was a case against him, he said that police would not have come to his house in 2006 if there were not a case filed against him and for six years “they” made plans to look for him.  When the Tribunal raised with the applicant the comments in the delegate’s decision record stating that the applicant said he could produce a copy of the documents concerning the case filed against him the applicant agreed that he told the delegate that if he needed to bring the papers he could send someone “to dig something out” but he spoke to his parents and they are too old and weak to do this. When the Tribunal reminded him that his sister managed to get a copy of his birth certificate he said that she took his father to the Chairman for that and he is close to the village. When the Tribunal raised with the applicant that his evidence is that he has not obtained the document/s, that he does not seem to be sure that there are documents and that he is not sure that there is a charge/complaint against him, the applicant said he is 90% sure. The Tribunal does not accept as true that there is a complaint or charge against the applicant in his country or that the applicant believes that there is such a charge.

3. The Tribunal does not accept as true that the applicant was an active BNP supporter, or that he attended the BNP rallies/meetings in his village that he claims. The Tribunal does not does not accept as true that there were clashes and fights between political parties in his village over him, or that he was attacked and injured by Awami League supporters who are looking for him to harm him as he claims. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept as true that the applicant was in hiding in his village at any time as he claims for the reasons that he claims.

   Applicant’s stay in Chittagong

4. The Tribunal also does not accept that the applicant moved to Chittagong to avoid harm in his village and/or that he was in hiding at any time in Chittagong. When the Tribunal asked the applicant about the amount of money he paid to come to Australia he agreed that it cost him a fair amount of money and he said that he worked in Chittagong for six years [in a certain industry]. When the Tribunal first asked him if he went to Chittagong to work he said that he went to save his life and he also worked. He said that he did not know about the job before he went to Chittagong but he was given information by a friend to go there. He started the job within a week or two after arriving there. He agreed that he had been unemployed for about six months in his village in Chandpur when he left there and he said that he lived with his sister for a little while before he left. He later said that he went to Chittagong to work; he said he took some money from his sister but then he worked and he worked full time. He said that he easily found a job in Chittagong as it is easy to find a labouring job there. When the Tribunal raised with him how he claims he was “in hiding” if he was working all the time he was in Chittagong for six years [in a certain industry] he said that he had to work and he lived [on] site and did not go out. He said that he worked in the project for five to six years and could only go out when the project was finished. When the Tribunal told the applicant that it had difficulty accepting that he did not leave the project site where he was working for many years as he claims for the reasons that he claims he said that you don’t have to go out of the area because everything is there for you.

5. The Tribunal does not accept as true the applicant’s evidence that he left Chittagong because he learned that people from his village, whom he feared, had found out where he was and he felt unsafe. When the Tribunal asked the applicant what caused him to leave Chittagong he said that when he was working in Chittagong people from his village got to know where he was; he mentioned Facebook and said that he knew through his younger sister that the people in his village knew where he was. He said that he left Chittagong because he was not safe as people from his village knew where he was and could find him. He agreed that no incident occurred in Chittagong but he said that anything could have happened to him there. He said that in Bangladesh all enemies look for you and find you. When the Tribunal queried how then he managed to live and work in Chittagong for five to six years without incident, especially given [Social media platform 1] and other social media, if people were looking for him to harm him, he said that it was “good luck”. He agreed nothing happened to him in Chittagong but said if they had found him they would have killed him.

6. The Tribunal finds that the applicant was living and working full time in his country in Chittagong without difficulties for about five to six years before leaving there in 2012. In the Tribunal’s view this is not consistent with his claims that there was a case filed against him in his country and that people from the Awami League were searching for him there to harm there.

   Applicant’s stay in [Country 1]

7. The Tribunal finds that the applicant was not a credible witness. The Tribunal finds that he gave the Tribunal untruthful and evasive evidence about his stay in [Country 1] and also his stay in [Country 2]. He told the Tribunal that he did not know anyone in Australia when he came here but he followed cricket when he was little and he just “followed the way” to Australia. When he was in Chittagong he heard people talking in a teashop saying “you can go to Australia” and soon after that he left Bangladesh; a “broker” took him. The broker kept him “here and there” and after about one year he arrived in Australia.  When the Tribunal asked him how long he was in [Country 1] he said that all he can say is that from Chittagong to Australia it took eleven or twelve months. He said he visited different places but he could not say where he went because the broker took him. When the Tribunal expressed its doubt that he would not know at least some places he went to over a period of nearly a year he said that “they changed our places at night”. He said he saw the Bangladesh sign at the border when he left Bangladesh. The Tribunal noted that his application for visa forms indicate he was in [Country 1] for a year and he said that he knows he went through the border and he thinks he was kept in [Country 1] for ten to eleven months, with others. He said that he is not educated and can’t read English and only a little Bengali. He said that it is “their business to take people“ and ”we were transferred at night”. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he worked in [Country 1] given that he was there for about eleven months. The applicant said that he did not work in [Country 1] and he said that he was just given water and biscuits and was hit if he asked for food. When the Tribunal asked him how he survived financially in [Country 1] for all those months if he did not work he said that it was arranged by the broker. When the Tribunal expressed doubt about the truth of the applicant’s evidence about where he stayed, and what he did, in [Country 1] he said that he was (at that time) dizzy, they were taken at night to places and he had no idea where they were going.

8. The applicant gave the Tribunal similarly evasive evidence about his stay in [Country 2]. He said that he got there by boat but he cannot say from where he left [Country 1].  He was taken to a hotel for a week, then taken by bus over two days and two nights, then stayed in “a few places”. He said that he was in [Country 2] for about one month. When the Tribunal asked the applicant whether he mentioned to anyone in [Country 2] that he had to flee from harm in his country he said that they were not allowed to talk to anyone. When the Tribunal queried this he said that he couldn’t talk to anyone because he could not speak the language.

   Applicant’s BNP activities in Australia

9. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant knows about some BNP activities that take place/have taken place in Australia, for example the protest against the Awami League leader when she visited Australia, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has attended BNP events while he has been staying in Australia. He told the Tribunal that he sometimes goes to [Australian Suburb 1 ]if they have any BNP programmes; he said that he went to two events at the community library and a protest at a hotel in [Australian Suburb 2] when the Awami League leader came to Australia. He was not sure when the protest/BNP events took place but gave the date he thought the protest took place. He then said that he has memory problems. He said that he thinks he went to one event one and a half years ago and another event which was before that. 

10. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has memory problems or that he had difficulties giving his evidence because of memory problems. There is no medical evidence before the Tribunal about any difficulties with the applicant’s memory or recall and he himself told the Tribunal that he could remember things going back a long time if they are true.

    BNP activities on return to Bangladesh

11. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a member of the BNP; he told the Tribunal this at the hearing. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant prefers the BNP to the Awami League the Tribunal finds that he has not been, and will not be, an active supporter of the BNP. The Tribunal finds that the applicant will not be involved with the BNP or BNP activities if he returns to Bangladesh. He told the Tribunal that he did not get involved with the BNP at all in Chittagong when he was there for about six years.  He told the Tribunal that he was “in hiding” in Chittagong and that he would have been killed by the Awami League there if he had been involved with BNP activities in Chittagong. The Tribunal does not accept as true that the applicant was in hiding in Chittagong as discussed above or that the reason he did not attend BNP activities in Chittagong was that he was afraid he would be killed by Awami League supporters.

    CONCLUSION

12. For the purposes of the ‘refugee’ criterion the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a genuine fear founded upon a real chance of persecution for one or more of the reasons of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he returns to his country.  

13. 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 his being removed from Australia to a receiving country, in this case Bangladesh, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm.

14. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a).

15. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

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

    DECISION

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

    Ms Christine Long
    Member