1513259 (Refugee)

1513259 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 1722 (27 February 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1513259
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Bangladesh
MEMBER:Roslyn Smidt
DATE:27 February 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

STATEMENT MADE ON 27 FEBRUARY 2019 AT 10:36AM
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Bangladesh – Religion – Sunni Muslim – perceived to be atheist – political opinion – opposition to Islamic extremists – membership of a particular social group – publicly challenging teaching of Islam – science and logic beliefs – credibility issues – perceived author – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 5K-LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 14 September 2015 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who is a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for the visa on 25 March 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that he did not find his claims to be credible.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).
Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration – PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and relevant country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a [age] year old married man from Sylhet in north east Bangladesh. His wife and two young children remain in Bangladesh. He has [Qualification 1] and a [Qualification 2]. Since 1994 he has worked for companies involved in the production of [goods].
The applicant first visited Australia in May 2014 to attend a [Convention]. He also visited [Country 1] and [Country 2] in 2012, [Country 1], [Country 3] and [Country 4] in 2013 and [Country 2] and [Country 5] in 2014. He took these trips for tourism, business and to attend [Conventions].
The applicant arrived in Australia most recently [in] March 2015 and applied for protection on 25 March 2015.
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
The applicant’s claims are set out in written and oral submissions to the Department and oral submissions made at hearings held on 9 August 2018 and 3 December 2018.
In essence the applicant claims that he is at risk of serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh because he is an atheist who holds secular views and believes in science and logic and has publicly challenged the teachings of Islam as perceived by fundamentalist or extremist Muslims. In particular he claims that in 2014 he wrote a book entitled [Book 1], which was a critique of Dr Maurice Bucaille’s bookThe Bible, the Quran and Science. Dr Bucaille was a French doctor who worked for [a] Family in the early 1970s. His book argued that the Koran was of divine origin and contained scientifically correct facts. It was published in 1976.
The applicant claims that because of his beliefs and the publication of his book he faces a real chance of experiencing serious harm on return to Bangladesh for reasons of religion (the fact or perception that he is an atheist); political opinion (opposition to Islamic extremists) and his membership of particular social groups of people born into an Islamic family who express opinions against Islam and writers/critics who question Islam. He claims that he is at risk of significant harm for the same reasons.
COUNTRY INFORMATION
The following extracts from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information (DFAT) Report on Bangladesh (February 2018) are intended to provide a context for the applicant’s claims:
Political Parties
The [ruling] Awami League has traditionally been broadly liberal and secular.
Security situation
The security situation in Bangladesh is volatile and can deteriorate quickly with little warning. Security threats include politically-motivated violence, particularly ahead of the next national elections in late 2018 or early 2019 [and] terrorist attacks committed by Islamist extremist groups…
Successive Bangladeshi governments have faced the challenge of dealing with extremist Islamist groups, who have frequently resorted to terrorist violence against a wide range of government and civilian targets. Authorities have taken a hard-line approach in responding to these attacks, which has included proscribing key militant groups and arresting hundreds of militants. International and domestic rights groups have reported that security operations against militant groups have resulted in high numbers of extra-judicial killings…
Between January 2013 and mid-2016, domestic militants (including some claiming allegiance with the Islamic State terrorist organisation) conducted a wave of attacks across the country that caused numerous fatalities. These attacks, most of which were small-scale in nature, targeted foreign nationals, religious minorities, and groups perceived to threaten conservative Islamist values, including human rights and LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex) activists, writers, bloggers, and publishers… The most serious attack was a hostage-taking incident at a restaurant in a wealthy area of Dhaka in July 2016 that resulted in the deaths of two police officers and 20 hostages, most of whom were foreigners. Bangladeshi authorities conducted extensive counter-terrorism operations in response. DFAT assesses that these operations have reduced the capability of militant groups but have not eliminated the risk of further attacks.
Religion
The Constitution holds that Islam is the state religion but commits the state to ensuring equal status and equal rights in the practice of the Hindu, Buddhist, Christian and other religions. The Constitution also commits the state to upholding secularism by not granting political status in favour of any religion, by prohibiting the abuse of religion for political purposes, and by prohibiting discrimination or persecution of persons protecting any religion. It also provides for the right to profess, practise, or propagate all religions ‘subject to law, public order, and morality’, and states religious communities or denominations have the right to establish, maintain and manage their religious institutions
Chapter XV of the Penal Code (‘Of Offences Relating to Religion’) provides for penalties of up to two years’ imprisonment for statements or acts that demonstrate a ‘deliberate and malicious’ intent to insult religious sentiments. Although the code does not define ‘intent to insult religious sentiments’, Bangladeshi courts have generally interpreted it to include insulting the Prophet Mohammed. The Criminal Code allows the government to confiscate all copies of any newspaper, magazine, or other publication containing language that ‘creates enmity and hatred among the citizens or denigrates religious beliefs’. The Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Act (2006) (see Media) applies similar restrictions to online publications, and was amended in 2013 to further criminalise defamation of religion.
Islamist organisations have consistently used the pejorative label ‘atheist’ against individuals who have publicly criticised Islamic fundamentalism or have questioned the role of Islam in the state, including those advocating for secular values. The government has periodically used the blasphemy laws against such individuals, often following complaints from Islamist organisations.
…
In addition to official sanction, individuals who have publicly criticised Islamic fundamentalism or have criticised the role of Islam in the state have faced significant societal pressure in the form of threats and violence from Islamist militant organisations. In February 2013, a blogger who had criticised Islamic fundamentalism was hacked to death outside his home in Dhaka. Two students were subsequently sentenced to death for the attack (one in absentia); while a Muslim cleric who had preached that it was legal to kill atheist bloggers who campaigned against Islam received a five-year sentence for abetting the murder.
In April 2013, Islamist groups published a ‘hit-list’ of 84 bloggers whose writings were deemed to be ‘un-Islamic’. Four bloggers whose names were on the list were hacked to death in separate machete attacks in Dhaka and Sylhet in 2015, along with another blogger in Dhaka in April 2016. Many of the other bloggers, writers, and publishers on the list went into hiding or exile due to concerns over the absence of, or inadequacy of, state protection. A further murder occurred in April 2016 of a university professor in Rajshahi who was involved in cultural activities that hard-line Islamist groups condemned as ‘un-Islamic’.
As noted in Security Situation, Bangladeshi authorities conducted extensive counter-terrorism operations in response to the wave of militant attacks…While condemning the threats and acts of violence, however, the government has tended to attribute blame for militant attacks upon the victims for criticising religion… DFAT assesses that this stance reflects domestic political considerations, with the government attempting to balance the interests of its traditional secular support base with those of Islamist groups.
DFAT assesses that those accused of blasphemy or defamation of religion by Islamist organisations are likely to face legal sanction, including imprisonment. High profile anti-Islamist bloggers face a high risk of societal discrimination in the form of threats and physical violence, with limited access to state protection.
A UK Home Office report dated October 2018, entitled Bangladesh: Religious minorities and atheists October 2018, paints a broadly similar picture. It also notes that sources had reported “a growing secularism in the country, which clashed against a concurrent growing Islamisation. Journalists said that, in Sylhet, the renouncing of religious belief was simply seen as personal and that, at most, a person would be deprived of their family rights”.
In relation to the issue of corruption, the DFAT Report on Bangladesh (February 2018) states:
Despite … constitutional protections, all major ranking institutions routinely place Bangladesh among the most corrupt countries in the world – Transparency International, for example, ranked Bangladesh 145th out of 176 countries in its 2016 Corruption Perceptions Index. Corruption is pervasive at all levels of society, and is particularly pervasive in the judicial system, police, and public services. Low salaries for employees in these sectors frequently lead to them demanding facilitation payments to supplement their income. Anti-corruption legislation is inadequately enforced, and prosecutions for corruption are rare.
Similar advice is provided by the UK Home Office in January 2018 and the GAN Business Anti-Corruption Portal.[1]
[1] UK Home Office Country Policy and Information Note Bangladesh: Background information, including actors of protection, and internal relocation January 2018 13.2; GAN Business Anti-Corruption Portal OF FACT
In determining whether an applicant is entitled to protection in Australia, it is necessary to make findings of facts on relevant matters. This generally involves assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims, which frequently includes assessment of supporting documents and other evidence. In making such assessments the benefit of the doubt should be given to those who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all of their claims. In addition, if the Tribunal makes an adverse finding in relation to a material claim made by the applicant but is unable to make that finding with confidence it must proceed to assess the claim on the basis that it might possibly be true. However, the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically any or all of the allegations made by an applicant. Further, the Tribunal is not required to have rebutting evidence available to it before it can find that a particular factual assertion by an applicant has not been made out.
For the reason set out below, I did not find the applicant to be a truthful or credible witness.
The applicant’s religious views and beliefs
The applicant claims that he abandoned Islam many years ago and became an atheist.
On the application form submitted in March 2015 the applicant stated that he was a Sunni Muslim. In a submission provided on 6 September 2015 it was claimed that he would be perceived to be an atheist if he returned to Bangladesh. When asked to confirm his religion by the delegate on 9 September 2015 he said that he was Muslim by birth and culture, but did not claim to be an atheist or to have abandoned his faith.
When asked about his faith at the hearing the applicant again said that he was a Muslim by birth. When I asked him to explain his beliefs his responses were hesitant and confused. He first said that he did not believe in anything else. When I asked him to clarify this statement he said that religion was a matter of belief and trust. I then asked him whether he believed in God. He said he did not and added that he had lost his faith in 1974. He said that only his wife and a few close friends knew that he no longer followed Islam.
I asked the applicant about his religious practices. He said that, like many Muslims in Bangladesh, he did not attend Mosque, but observed Ramadan and Eid in Bangladesh and Australia. When asked why he continued to observe these celebrations despite abandoning Islam he said that it was in order to avoid questions about his faith and the possibility of problems for his family. When asked if he associated with Muslims in Australia he said that he had little contact with Muslims and mostly associated with other non-believers.
In August 2016, while in Australia, the applicant published an article arguing that it was time to modernise the method of determining the date for Islamic celebrations such as Ramadan as the current system resulted in celebrations being held on different days in different parts of the world. At the hearing I asked why he had written this article if he had abandoned his faith and was no longer a Muslim. He said that he needed to engage with society and it was important to raise these issues.
On 25 December 2018, following the second hearing, the applicant’s representative provided a copy of a webpage which he said that he had located while searching for entries relating to the applicant’s book. The page is on [a] website and refers to a meeting of [a social group in] November 2016. It includes a comment posted by the which states that he is an occasional writer and had written a critique of Dr Bucaille’s book, which meant he had to flee his country in fear of being killed by intolerant Muslim terrorists. I have accessed the relevant post. The applicant is not included on the list of people who attended the meeting [in] November 2016.
I found the applicant’s evidence regarding his religious beliefs and practices confused and unpersuasive.
In the first place, if he had abandoned his faith over 40 years ago and become an atheist, I believe that he would have stated this clearly and unequivocally prior to the hearing. I find his failure to do so a strong indication that this claim is not true.
Secondly, while I accept that someone who had abandoned Islam might continue to observe Muslim celebrations such as Ramadan in Bangladesh to avoid problems, I do not accept that he would have continued this practice in Australia if he no longer believed in God, no longer followed Islam and had limited contact with Muslims.
Thirdly, I have some difficulty accepting that the applicant would have written an article on the manner in which Muslims determine the date of Ramadan and other celebrations if he is no longer a Muslim and did not believe in God. More significantly, the claim that he wrote the article in order to engage with society does not sit well with the evidence that he has had little contact with other Muslims in Australia.
In these circumstances, while I accept that he believes in logic and science and supports secularism, I do not accept that he is an atheist or that he has completely abandoned Islam. I believe that he made this claim at the hearing in order to enhance his claim for protection in Australia.
In reaching this conclusion I have considered the item posted on [a social] [page] by the applicant in November 2016. The applicant made no mention of involvement in [a] group in [Australia] in his submissions to the Department or the Tribunal prior to December 2018. No evidence has been provided which suggests that he has attended any meetings of [a social group] or had any engagement with the group beyond the November 2016 post. Nor is there any explanation for the applicant’s decision to post a summary of his claims for protection (which, as discussed below, I have found to lack credibility) on the website of a group with which he appears to have had little if any real engagement. In the absence of evidence that the applicant had an ongoing involvement with the group or an explanation for his decision to post what appears to be an isolated comment I have given little weight to this post and do not accept that it provides persuasive evidence that he is an atheist or that he has abandoned Islam.
The applicant’s role as a public intellectual and promoter of science and logic

In his submissions to the Department the applicant said that he sometimes expressed his views in the media and claimed that he could not return to Bangladesh because of his book critiquing Dr Bucaille.
According to his written submissions provided to the Tribunal, the applicant is a secular intellectual who holds strong beliefs, was associated with secular blogger Ananta Bijoy Das, publicly challenges fundamentalist Islamic views and is likely to continue to do so if he returns to Bangladesh. It was also submitted that he is at risk of facing blasphemy or related charges in Bangladesh because of his public expression of his beliefs, but when asked about his claim at the hearing he said that this was not correct.
The applicant’s early work as a writer
The applicant has consistently described himself as a writer and claimed that he has written articles relating to his beliefs regarding critical thinking and scientific evidence since the 1980s. In his initial application he said that he had expressed alternative views about Islam and the Koran in these articles. During his interview with the delegate he said that he had written many articles before the publication of his book in 2015, but only two of them had been published. The first one was entitled [title deleted]. It was published in [a] Magazine in [year]. The second was entitled [title deleted] and was published [in] 1996. Copies and translations of both articles were provided.
In a submission to the Tribunal dated 23 August 2017 the applicant said that while he was not a professional writer he had written a few pieces on modern thinking and alternative opinions on theology for magazines and newspapers prior to 2015. He said that apart from the articles already provided he was unable to locate these articles because he could not recall the details of the publications in which they appeared.
At the hearing I noted that the applicant had told the delegate that he had only published two articles prior to 2015, which appeared to be at odds with the information in the August 2017 submission. He said that this had been a misunderstanding. He claimed that in addition to the articles mentioned during his interview with the delegate he had published another two or three articles between 1984 and 1996. He said that none of the articles he had published before 1996 were offensive to Islam and none of them had caused any problems. He confirmed that he had not published anything between 1996 and 2015 apart from [Book 1].
The vague and changing nature of the applicant’s evidence regarding the number of articles he had published prior to 2015 casts doubt on the credibility of his claims regarding his work as a writer in Bangladesh. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this decision, I accept that he wrote several articles on non-contentious topics and two or three of them were published prior to 1997. However, there is no suggestion that these articles caused any problems for the applicant prior to his departure from Bangladesh, nor is there anything in the evidence before me which suggests that they would have any impact on his treatment on return to Bangladesh. I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh because of several articles which he wrote and were published prior to 1997.
I have also noted the applicant’s claim that he continued to write unpublished articles after 1997. No copies of any of these articles have been provided and I found the applicant’s evidence regarding these writings vague and unconvincing and I do not accept that the applicant wrote unpublished articles on matters such as his views on science between 1997 and 2014.
The applicant’s background as an outspoken secular intellectual
It has been submitted that the applicant is a secular intellectual who opposes extremism and will express these views if he returns to Bangladesh.
At the hearing I asked the applicant for details of his involvement in activities other than writing [Book 1] in the year before he left Bangladesh. He said that he had been a member of [a group] and some members were from faiths other than Islam. He suggested meetings should include prayers from all faiths. At the second hearing he said that he did not fear harm on return to Bangladesh for any reason linked to his membership of [a group].
I asked the applicant if he had been involved in any activities directed towards promoting his views on science and logic. He said that he was not involved in any political groups, only social [groups].
I asked if the applicant had discussed his views on religion with anyone in Bangladesh. He said that he had a small group of about seven friends who met at his office in the Bazaar to play cards and they also discussed religion and philosophy, but he had not discussed his views on religion with anyone else. Later in the hearing he said that a number of people who visited a [location] were also aware of his views and that he had spoken to people at gatherings of like-minded people from time to time. I asked the applicant several times if any of his comments had been critical of Islam or the Koran. While his responses were somewhat confused, he indicated that he had not been critical of Islam, but his views were perceived as anti-Islam by extremists.
At the hearing the applicant said that he had not faced problems with anyone in Bangladesh because of his views on religion or science or anything else prior to coming to Australia. He claims that his problems began after extremists became aware of his views after the publication of his book in 2014. (As discussed below, I do not accept this claim.)
As I do not accept that the applicant has abandoned Islam and become an atheist, I do not accept that he has disclosed this belief to anyone in Bangladesh or Australia.
I accept that the applicant spoke about his views on science and logic and his support for secularism to close friends who met to play cards and talk and to like-minded people at larger gatherings. However, I do not accept that he expressed these views more broadly or that he was viewed as a secular intellectual outside this relatively small group of friends and acquaintances or that he was viewed as anti-Islam by anyone prior to his departure from Bangladesh.
The applicant’s association with Ananta Bijoy Das
Central to the applicant’s case is the claim that Ananta Bijoy Das was his friend, that he inspired Mr Das who came to him for ideas and information and that Mr Das was instrumental in his decision to write a critique of Dr Bucaille’s work.
By way of context[2], Ananta Bijoy Das was a secular blogger from Sylhet who was “brutally murdered” while on his way to work on 12 May 2015. According to a number of media reports published following his death Mr Das was “passionate about science and critical thinking” and had written very explicitly about the fact that he did not follow any religion. He corresponded with several university professors from Europe and North America and was “a very versatile writer with vast array of knowledge”. He wrote or co-authored several books, including one on Darwin. He wrote blogs on the website called Mukto-Mona [Free Mind], which explicitly took issue with religious fundamentalism, in particularly Islamic fundamentalism. He ran an organisation in Sylhet called the Science & Rationalist Council (SRC), which was committed to promoting rationalism and scientific curiosity. In 2007 this organisation began to publish a magazine called “Jukti” (Reason), which featured a range of articles including critical evaluations of the views of prominent promoters of Islam. These articles were highly controversial in the country, but nevertheless highly popular among Bangladeshis. His was among the 84 names of bloggers, branded as “anti-Islamic atheists” and tagged for execution by extremist Muslim groups, and he received death threats prior to being killed. His death was widely reported and some reports included his biography. Al Qaeda claimed credit for his death and six men were charged with his murder.
[2]See for example, Bangladesh blogger Ananta Bijoy Das hacked to death 12 May 2015, When the machete struck, Ananta Bijoy Das knew exactly what was happening , The National 16 June 2015, ; Charges accepted against Farabi, five others in Ananta Bijoy murder case, Dhaka Tribune 9 May 2017,
There is no mention of Mr Das in the applicant’s initial protection visa application. According to the statement provided with that application, he decided to write a critique of Dr Bucaille’s book in 2014 and subsequently provided the manuscript to his publisher.
During his interview with the delegate the applicant claimed that Mr Das was his [friend] and frequently encouraged him to write. He said that Mr Das had sent a publisher to his home in 2014 to discuss the possibility of publishing a critique of Dr Bucaille’s book. However, he said nothing which suggested that Mr Das had asked or encouraged him to write an article on Dr Bucaille’s book in 2009 or that he had written an article of any kind for Mr Das’s magazine at that time.
In a statement provided to the Tribunal in August 2017 the applicant said that Mr Das used to come to his house frequently for intellectual discussions and claimed that Mr Das asked him to write a critique of Dr Bucaille’s work for his magazine Jukti (Logic or reason) in mid-2009 for publication in January 2010. The applicant claimed that he wrote the article, but it was too long to be included in the magazine. Nevertheless, Mr Das expressed his gratitude to the applicant in the introduction to the magazine. In 2014 Mr Das expressed interest in arranging for the applicant’s critique of Dr Bucaille’s work to be published as book and introduced him to a publisher. The applicant refined and modified the earlier critique to make it suitable for publication as a book.
In support of this claim the applicant provided a copy of a publication in the Bengali language together with a translation of some sections. The publication is entitled [name deleted] and dated January 2010. It acknowledges the “[quote deleted]”.The publication also “[quote deleted]”.
At the hearing I asked the applicant what he knew about Mr Das. He said that he knew that Mr Das was a Hindu who worked at a bank. He believed in scientific thought and had written a book on Darwinism. He said that he was not aware of any other books by Mr Das, but he had published a magazine and also wrote a blog called Mukto-Mona. The applicant said that he had never read Mukto-Mona and did not know much about it, but he believed that it may have been the reason Mr Das was killed.
I asked the applicant about his friendship with Mr Das. He said that they first met at a [location] in 2000. Mr Das, who was still a teenager at the time, overheard the applicant, the owner of the shop and a professor discussing the debate over whether the new millennium started at the beginning of 2000 or the beginning of 2001. When the applicant left the shop Mr Das was waiting for him because he was interested in intellectual issues such as the one the applicant and his friends had been discussing. From then until 2009 he occasionally encountered Mr Das in the street, but they did not talk very much.
The applicant claimed that in 2009 Mr Das invited him to attend a meeting of a society called Science and Logic which he and others had established sometime earlier. It was a public group and published a magazine. The applicant did not know any of the members of the group, but he had seen some of them in other places before the meeting. He only attended one meeting of the group. He said that Mr Das had invited him to the meeting because he thought he might be interested, but also claimed that he was invited because he was progressive and Mr Das wanted him to give a speech to inspire the members of the group. When asked what he had spoken about in his speech, he said that he had urged the members to follow science and logic.
I noted that it appeared that the applicant had had one conversation with Mr Das in 2000 and only occasional brief encounters with him in the street from then until 2009 and observed that it seemed unlikely that Mr Das would have had much knowledge of his views or opinions. The applicant said that Mr Das was close to the people at the [location] where they first met and they told him about his views and opinions.
The applicant said that after he attended the 2009 meeting Mr Das came to his house or office every two months or so to meet with him and his friends. On one or two occasions Mr Das brought friends from the Science and Logic society to these gatherings. He claimed that he had spoken to Mr Das once or twice after arriving in Australia. I noted that the applicant had previously stated that the gatherings at his home or office were informal and mainly social in nature and involved playing cards and conversation. He confirmed that this was correct.
I noted that there appeared to be a contradiction between the applicant’s submissions to the Department, which indicated that he decided to write a critique of Dr Bucaille’s work in 2014 and his evidence to the Tribunal that he had first written a critique of Dr Bucaille’s work in 2009. He said the article which he wrote in 2009 was only intended for publication in a magazine and in 2014 Mr Das encouraged him to rewrite it as a book.
I noted that the applicant had claimed that Mr Das had dedicated a book published in January 2010 to him. I observed that he did not appear to have had a close relationship with Mr Das or to have influenced him in any way prior to that time and advised him I had difficulty understanding why Mr Das would have dedicated a book to him. He responded that Mr Das used to come to him to get his views and that he had inspired Mr Das who spread his [the applicant’s] ideas to others. I observed that it appeared that prior to 2009 the applicant’s interactions with Mr Das consisted of occasional casual encounters in the street, attendance at one meeting of Mr Das’s group and meetings at informal social gatherings at the applicant’s office, six times at most. I also noted that Mr Das was a well-known figure who had well-developed views on matters such as religion and science by 2009 and observed that it seemed unlikely that Mr Das would have been inspired by him or mentioned him in the dedication in his book. The applicant noted that he was not the only person listed as an inspiration in the book and said that he did not know why Mr Das had decided to include him in the dedications. I noted that the [applicant’s name] appeared to be very common in Bangladesh and asked if it was possible that the dedication referred to someone else of the same name. He agreed that his name was common, but maintained that he was the person mentioned in the dedication.
During the second hearing I advised the applicant that evidence from a range of sources including the UK Home Office suggested that there was a high level of corruption in Bangladesh and it was relatively easy to obtain fraudulent documents by bribery or fraud. The applicant acknowledged that this was correct and added that he was aware that asylum seekers sometimes provided false evidence in support of their claims. He said that this reputation made it difficult for genuine asylum seekers and maintained that all the documents which he had provided were genuine.
For the reasons set out below, I do not accept that the applicant was a friend or associate of Mr Das or that Mr Das played any role in the production of his book or that Mr Das mentioned him in a book or magazine published in 2010.
In the first place, I find the claim that Mr Das would have turned to the applicant for inspiration in 2009 or at any other time far-fetched and implausible.
As discussed above, Mr Das had been an open opponent of fundamentalism and an outspoken supporter of secularism and free thought who had communicated with like-minded intellectuals in Bangladesh and internationally prior to 2009. According to the applicant, apart from one chat in 2000 and some brief encounters in the street, he had not spoken to Mr Das prior to being invited to a meeting of his Science and Logic group in 2009. There is no credible evidence which suggests that the applicant had a public profile as a secular intellectual or promoter of secularism, science or logic prior to 2009 or at any time prior to his departure from Bangladesh. At most he had published a few non-contentious articles promoting science and logic prior to 1997 and discussed religion, science and philosophy at social gatherings and events with like-minded friends and acquaintances (see also above). In these circumstance, I do not accept that Mr Das would have asked the applicant to attend a meeting in 2009 so that he could make a speech to inspire existing members of the group or that Mr Das continued to meet with him following this meeting so that he (Mr Das) could learn from him and pass on his ideas to others or that Mr Das would have turned to the applicant for inspiration or advice at any time.
Secondly, I found the applicant’s evidence regarding Mr Das’s role in his decision to write a critique of Dr Bucaille’s book confused and contradictory. In his initial written submission to the Department he said that he decided to write a critique of Dr Bucaille’s work in 2014 and made no mention of Mr Das. When the book was discussed during his interview with the delegate he claimed for the first time that Mr Das had introduced him to the publisher in 2014, but made no mention of an earlier article written in 2009. If the applicant had written an article in 2009 for publication in Mr Das’s magazine in 2010, I believe he would have included this information when asked about the publication of his critique during his interview with the delegate. In reaching this conclusion I have considered the applicant’s explanation that the 2009 and 2014 critiques were written for different purposes. However, this is at odds with his evidence that the 2014 book was a refined and expanded version of the 2009 article and I do not accept it.
After considering all of the relevant evidence I do not accept that the applicant was a friend or associate of Mr Das, or that he first wrote a critique of Dr Bucaille’s book in in 2009, or that Mr Das mentioned him in the dedications section of a book or magazine published in January 2010 or that Mr Das played any role in the claimed publication of his book in 2014. I find that these claims were all concocted by the applicant to support his claim for protection in Australia.
In reaching this conclusion I have noted the evidence provided by the applicant which appears to confirm the claim that he was mentioned in a book or magazine published by Mr Das in 2010. However, as the applicant confirmed at the hearing, it is not difficult to obtain fraudulent documents in Bangladesh. As the applicant also agreed at the hearing, [the applicant’s name] is a common name in Bangladesh. I note that the translator of the document provided by the applicant is also named [the applicant’s name]. In light of this information, my findings in relation to the applicant’s relationship with Mr Das set out above, and my conclusions regarding his general credibility set out above and below, I find that the document purporting to be an extract for a book or magazine written by Mr Das is fraudulent or has been misrepresented by the applicant and I have given it no weight.
I have also noted that the applicant had some knowledge of Mr Das. However, Mr Das was well known in Bangladesh and the information the applicant provided was mentioned in a number newspaper reports published after Mr Das was killed. I believe that this was how he acquired his knowledge of Mr Das.

Finally, I have considered the evidence provided by [Dr C] at the second hearing. [Dr C] said that both he and the applicant were friends with Mr Das and Mr Das had played a large role in the publication of the applicant’s book. However, as discussed below, I did not find [Dr C] to be a credible witness. I have given no weight to his evidence.
Publication of [Book 1]
The applicant claims that he is at risk of harm in Bangladesh because he wrote a critique of Dr Bucaille’s book on Islam and science entitled [Book 1] which was published in February 2015, shortly before his departure for Australia[3].
[3] The applicant claimed that he also wrote a novel entitled [book name deleted] in January 2014. However it was not published and no claims have been put forward which suggest that it has or would cause problems of any kind for the applicant and therefore it is not discussed in this decision.
In his written submission provided to the Department the applicant said that he decided to write critique of Dr Bucaille’s book in early 2014 and the book was released at a book fair in Dhaka in February 2015. Following this he heard people criticising his book in Sylhet, but he was used to criticism and ignored it. On arrival [in Australia] [in] March 2015 he telephoned his wife who told him that [a few] people on motorbikes came to his house and asked where he was. She told them that he was in Australia. The men became angry and used filthy words against him. They appeared to be members of Jamaat-I-Islam. The applicant suspected that the visit was linked to his book criticising Bucaille’s work.
Two days later the applicant called his wife again. She told him to call a friend named [Mr D], who was a member of Jamaat-I-Islam (JI). [Mr D] told the applicant that JI saw his book as anti-Islamic and viewed him as someone who had committed a serious crime against Islam. [Mr D] said that he also opposed the applicant’s views, but he did not want him to be killed because they were friends. After receiving this information the applicant feared for his life and on 26 March 2015 he applied for protection.
During his interview with the delegate the applicant said he feared returning to Bangladesh because he had had written a book which criticised Maurice Bucaille’s work The Bible, the Koran and Science, published in 1976. The applicant said that he read Dr Bucaille’s work in 1994 and wrote side notes in the book with the intention of writing something about it in future. The delegate asked the applicant when he had written his book. He said that he had written his book in 2014 after obtaining a copy of an English translation of Bucaille’s book. He said that he obtained the English version in order to confirm that the Bengali was correct as he was concerned that the Bengali version did not accurately reflect Dr Bucaille’s views, but this was not the case. The delegate asked again when he had written his book critiquing Dr Bucaille’s work. He said that he had notes prior to 2014, but the book was written in 2014.
The delegate observed that it was illegal to publish material critical of Islam in Bangladesh and suggested that nobody in Bangladesh would have published his book. The applicant said that his book had not been banned because it did not criticise or defame Islam. He said that the publisher had not faced any problems because of his role in publishing the book.
The applicant said that he had written the critique because he disagreed with Bucaille’s view that the Koran was consistent with science while the Bible was not. After reading Bucaille’s book he concluded that the Koran was not scientific and that religious texts did not need to be scientific. The delegate noted that the same points had been made by other critics well before 2014. The applicant agreed that this was correct, but said that none had been published in Bengali.
The applicant said that before he left Bangladesh in March 2015 a man called [Mr E] had warned him that the book might cause problems, but he did not believe him. The applicant’s interaction with [Mr E] was not further discussed.
The applicant repeated the claim that he had called his wife on arrival in Australia and she told him that she had been visited by men who were looking for him. She did not recognise them and the applicant said that he did not know who they were, but he believed that they were Islamic activists who wanted to harm him because of his book, if he returned to Bangladesh.
In support of his claims the applicant provided a copy of his book and an English translation of the entire text. The delegate observed that the International Standard Book Number (ISBN) on the book ([number]) was not a valid ISBN and it therefore appeared the book had not been published in Bangladesh. The applicant said that the publisher was to blame for this error.
The delegate did not accept that the applicant had published a book critiquing Dr Bucaille’s work in 2014, in large part because the ISBN number was invalid.
In a statement provided to the Tribunal on 28 August 2017 the applicant claimed for the first time that he had written an unpublished article critiquing Dr Bucaille’s work in mid-2009 in response to a request from Mr Das, and repeated the claim that Mr Das introduced him to his publisher in 2014. He said that the use of an ISBN is not mandatory in Bangladesh and it is not uncommon for invalid numbers to be used due to printing or administrative errors. He said he had contacted his publisher who said that he had made a mistake when printing his book and advised him that the book had been reprinted in 2016 with the correct ISBN.
In support of his claims he provided a number of documents including:
·Copies of the first and second edition of his book. The second has the publication date February 2016 and the ISBN [number]. This number conforms to the number system used in the ISBN system.
·A copy of a letter to the editor of [a publication] which confirms that ISBNs are not required in Bangladesh and that invalid numbers are frequently used in Bangladesh.
·A document issued by the Bangladesh National Library which states that the applicant’s book was allotted the ISBN [number] [in] January 2015.
·A receipt dated [in] May 2015 from the Department of Archives and Library, which states that they received a copy of the applicant’s book in February 2015.
·A letter from [Mr F], proprietor of [a company], dated 17 September 2015, which states that he knows the applicant and published his book [in] February 2015 at a book fair held at [a location]. It states that the ISBN on the first edition of the applicant’s book was incorrect due to a printing error. The letter indicates that the publisher had a [social media] page at [website deleted].
·Copies of two pages purporting to be from the Online Public Access Catalogue of the National Library of Bangladesh, partly in English and partly in Bengali. One states that a copy of the applicant’s book was held in the bibliography (compilation) section of the library, the other describes the book as “literary form, short story”. Neither contains a web address. According to the applicant they were downloaded from [website deleted].
·A letter dated 19 September 2015 which states that the applicant’s book had been available at a [location] since February 2015.
·Pictures of a young man reading what appears to be a copy of the applicant’s book. According to the applicant these are pictures of his publisher.
·A copy of an article entitled [title deleted], written by the applicant and published [in] August 2016 in [title deleted], [details deleted].
·Reports of attacks by extremists in Bangladesh.
At the hearing on 9 August 2018 the applicant again claimed that he had first written a critique of Dr Bucaille’s work in 2009 and that he had later reworked this as a book which was first offered for sale at [a] book fair [in] February 2015. He said that he had not expected problems because of his book as there were others in Bangladesh which made similar points. I asked what it was about his book that extremists objected to. He said that they were angry because the book said that Islam was not scientific. I asked if there were any specific criticisms about the Koran in his book. He said that there were no specific criticisms. I asked what the book said about the Koran. He said that, for example, the Koran says that the earth is static, but science says that everything is moving and Islamic extremists don’t like this. I observed that it was my understanding that many Bangladeshis accepted these scientific views. He agreed that this was correct, but said that extremists did not.
At the second hearing I asked the applicant if there was anything in the book which revealed that he was an atheist or which insulted Islam. He said that the book did not contain anything of that nature, but most Muslims believe that the Koran is scientifically correct. Later in the hearing he also claimed for the first time that his book also blamed Bucaillie’s book for the rise in Islamic extremism.
I asked the applicant for details of the publication of [Book 1]. He said the publisher had paid for the cost of producing the book, but he did not know how much money was involved. He was not sure how many copies had been printed, but understood it was about 500. He was not sure what arrangements had been made to distribute and sell the book, but he thought it was probably sold at the book stall at [a] book fair and distributed to some bookshops. He said that he had not published the book primarily to make money, but his publisher told him that he might make some money if it sold well.
I observed that as it was the applicant’s first book and he apparently wanted to spread his views to encourage support for science and logic, I had difficulty understanding why he appeared to have so little interest in matters relating to its publication or distribution. He said that he had spoken to the publisher a few times prior to publication to find out what was happening, but he had not been very interested in the issue of distribution.
I asked the applicant how many copies of his book had been sold. He said that he did not know as he had left Bangladesh shortly after it was published. I noted that he had provided a copy of his book that appeared to have been published in February 2016, which suggested that the initial run of 500 copies had been sold out. He said that he was not sure. He said that he had not asked the publisher how many copies of the second edition were printed in 2016 and did not know if any further copies had been printed since that time. I observed that I found it strange that he appeared to have so little interest in the success of his book. The applicant maintained that his claims were true.
I asked the applicant if his book was still on sale in Bangladesh. He said that he knew it was for sale in at least one [location] and that it was also available directly from the publisher. He said that to the best of his knowledge neither the publisher nor any of the booksellers who had taken copies of his book had experienced any problems.
I advised the applicant that I had not been able to find any record of the book using the valid ISBN number which appeared on the second edition of his book. I advised him that while I was not suggesting that this meant that the book did not exist, the fact that the book now had a valid ISBN was not particularly strong evidence that it had been published in Bangladesh, as it was my understanding that it was easy to generate a number which complied with the requirements of a genuine ISBN. The applicant maintained his claims were true.
I noted that the applicant had provided the Tribunal with copies of the book which he claimed was the cause of his problems. I advised him that it was my understanding that it was possible to get a single copy of a book printed. He agreed that it was easy to have a book printed in small numbers, but said that the evidence he had provided from the Bangladesh National Library catalogue proved that his book existed.
On 26 July 2018 I attempted to access the National Library online catalogue using the link provided by the applicant ([website deleted]), but the resulting page stated unknown host. I also attempted to find the page by using the Google search function, also without success. At the hearing I advised the applicant that I had been unable to access the Bangladesh National Online Library catalogue using the link he had provided. The applicant said that he was no longer able to access the page. The applicant’s representative said that he had also had problems accessing the catalogue and would endeavour to provide further evidence.
I noted that the screenshots of the catalogue provided by the applicant were mostly in Bengali, but from the information in English it appeared that one entry described the book as a bibliography and another categorised it as a short story, neither of which appeared to be accurate descriptions of the book. At the applicant’s representative’s request I asked the interpreter to translate one of the entries. He confirmed that the entry referred to a book called [Book 1] written by [the applicant].
I noted that the applicant had provided a photograph of a young man reading what appeared to be copy of his book and a letter from a [a location]. I observed that while I had not yet made a finding regarding either of these documents they could easily have been manufactured by anyone. As noted above, I also advised him that independent evidence suggested fraud and corruption were common in Bangladesh and it was not difficult to obtain fraudulent documents. The applicant agreed that this was correct, but maintained that his claims were true and all of his documents were genuine.
I noted that according to the applicant’s initial statement people were talking about his book in Syhlet prior to his departure for Australia in March 2015. He said that he had heard some criticism of his book in late February or early March from people who said he was not following Islam. I asked who had made these criticisms and how they had become aware of the existence of the applicant’s book. He said they might have visited the book fair [in a location]. When asked for more specific information he said that he had met a man called [Mr E] at [another location] and he had criticised the book. He described [Mr E] as a blind follower of Jamaat i Islam. He said that they knew each other well and [Mr E] was already aware of his views because had had visited his (the applicant’s) house and seen a copy of a book called Murder in the Name of Islam[4] which led to a discussion during which the applicant disclosed his views on religion to [Mr E]. He said that when they met at [another location] [Mr E] observed that the applicant had finally made his views public and it was clear he was not happy that the book had been published. However, he was not a terrorist and did not make any threats. He said that he had not received any threats relating to his book prior to leaving Bangladesh. He said that [Mr E] left Bangladesh about two years ago and now lives in [another country].
[4] This appears to refer to a book by a member of the Ahmaddiya sect regarding the massacre of members of the sect by Sunni Muslims from JI in 1953.
The applicant again claimed that [terrorists] came to his home after he left Bangladesh and asked his wife where he was. She told them he was in Australia. They did not mention his book, but his wife heard them say to each other that he must have fled the country to save his life so he assumed that they had come because of his book. I asked if he told his publisher about this incident. He said that he had and his publisher said that he had not realised that it would be such a big problem and he was sorry for the applicant.
The applicant said that the day after his wife told him about the visit by the four men he spoke to her again and she told him to call his friend [Mr D]. Two days later he contacted [Mr D] who told him that Avijit Roy, a progressive blogger, had been killed in February and warned him to be careful because he also wrote in a progressive fashion. I observed that in his earlier submissions the applicant appeared to suggest that [Mr D] had information which suggested that JI was likely to harm him if he returned to Bangladesh because of his book, but it appeared that [Mr D] had merely suggested that he might be at risk of harm because of the general situation.[5] The applicant said that [Mr D] had not suggested that JI might harm him. He said that [Mr D] told him that unknown people were targeting progressives and added that [Mr D] had conducted some research by talking to people he knew and they told they had a very negative view of the applicant’s book.
[5] At the hearing I also suggested that [Mr D] had spoken to the applicant about Mr Das’s murder, but as the applicant pointed out, this was not correct.
I noted that the applicant’s earlier submissions appeared to suggest that he was at risk of harm from JI, which appeared to be at odds with country information which suggested that other extremist groups had been responsible for the deaths of Mr Das and others during the period in question. The applicant said that it could have been extremists from JI or other groups.
I asked the applicant if he had contacted anyone to see if he could get any information about more recent problems caused by his book. He responded that extremists did not provide information about the people they were targeting. I observed that this was not my understanding as the evidence suggested that it was not uncommon for extremists to make threats prior to taking action. I asked again if the applicant had attempted to get any recent information about the situation in relation to his book. He said that he had spoken to people from time to time, but nobody could tell him anything.
On 20 September 2018 and 26 November 2018 the applicant’s representative provided additional submissions arguing that the applicant’s claims regarding the publication of his book were credible and should be accepted. He submitted that to do otherwise would be to disregard the extensive evidence provided by the applicant and find that the applicant had written an entire book and fabricated evidence regarding the publication and distribution of two editions of the book, including multiple correspondence from the National Library of Bangladesh, and find that he planned all of this just in an attempt to hoodwink the Australian government into giving him a protection visa. He observed that no plausible alternate explanation for the existence of the evidence had been provided by the Tribunal.
The submission requested that the Tribunal take oral evidence from [Mr G] from the National Library of Bangladesh and [Dr C], who was also mentioned in the dedication of Mr Das’s book or magazine published in January 2010, and invited the Tribunal to take evidence from the authors of any other supporting evidence provided by the applicant.
A number of documents were also provided including:
·A copy of a Wikipedia entry on Maurice Bucaille which states in part that a publication called “Bucailler Bhrantibilas urged that all divine scriptures, including the Bible and the Quran are obviously inconsistent with science and it is not necessary for the divine scriptures to be consistent with science”. It does not mention the applicant by name or include his book in the list of references at the end of the article. Notes on the back indicate the page reflects the contents of the Wikipedia page [in] November 2016.
·A letter from [Mr G] on letterhead of the National Library of Bangladesh dated 9 September 2018 which states that the library holds two copies of [Book 1], one published in February 2015 and the other in February 2016. It also states that the library’s website [website deleted] is under development and is presently interrupted which means that the online catalogue cannot be accessed.
·A translation of the entry from the online catalogue which states that the applicant’s book is held in the Bibliography section and that the subject of the book was Islam and other religions.
·A copy of a list of officers from the National Library which names [Mr H], [an employee] of the National Library of Bangladesh.
·Copies of the applicant’s representative’s email correspondence with [Dr C], in which [Dr C] states that he met the applicant about 20 years ago at a [a location] in Sylhet, where intellectual discussions took place and they continued to meet at the [location] and other social and cultural functions and talk by telephone following this. He described the applicant as a writer who holds progressive opinions about science and religion. He claimed that he also knew Mr Das. He said that Mr Das had played a central role in the publication of [Book 1], including choosing the cover design and proofreading the manuscript. [Dr C] said that he knew Mr Das because Mr Das was a friend of some of his students and claimed that Mr Das had sometimes gone to his office to obtain suggestions and cooperation. He said that he was involved in proofreading issue 3 of Mr Das’s magazine Logic and was mentioned in the publication in gratitude for this assistance.
·A picture of [Dr C] holding a copy of the applicant’s book. [Dr C] said that he had purchased the [name deleted] book in Sylhet in February 2015.
·A copy of a page from the website of [a university] in Sylhet which provides contact details for [Dr C].

At the second hearing I advised the applicant that I had some concerns about the Wikipedia page as it differed from the current Wikipedia entry.[6] I noted that while other critiques or reviews mentioned on the page were included in the list of references at the end of the page his book was not. I also noted that Wikipedia entries could be edited by anyone. The applicant said that he did not know why his book was not included in the reference list. His representative submitted that the entry was strong evidence that the applicant’s book existed and the fact that it was mentioned in 2016 indicated that the page had not been created to support his application.
[6] At the hearing I also advised the applicant that I had not been able to access the page he had provided using the web address at the bottom of the page. While I was never able to access the page using the address given, I was able to locate it by other means and confirm that it was an earlier version of the Wikipedia page on Dr Bucaille.
I advised the applicant that while I was willing to take evidence from [Dr C] as requested, I had been unable to open the webpage which provided his contact details and which made it difficult to establish his identity. The applicant’s representative said that he had used the link many times. However, his attempt to access the page during the hearing was unsuccessful. Following the hearing I was able to access the website which names [Dr C] as [employed in an occupation] and includes the telephone used at the hearing.
The applicant said that he had known [Dr C] since about 2000 and they met regularly at a [location]. In addition they sometimes spoke by telephone or bumped into each other at events attended by like-minded people.
[Dr C] confirmed that he had first met the applicant at a [location] about 20 years ago. He said that he was open minded and secular and shared many of the applicant’s views, but he only wrote literary criticism. He said that he and the applicant met regularly at cultural and literary events and he had sometimes visited the applicant at home.
I asked [Dr C] for information about the applicant’s work. He said that the applicant had several businesse including [Business 1]. I asked when the applicant had owned [Business 1]. He said that it had been quite a while ago. I asked if he knew what the applicant did immediately before coming to Australia. He said that he was not sure, but it might have been an online business.
I asked [Dr C] for information on the applicant’s writings apart from the book on Bucaille. He said that the applicant had written a number of articles including one which had something to do with race. He said that he recalled that the applicant had published a number of articles during the time they knew each other, but he could not recall the titles or other details of any of these works.
I asked [Dr C] if he and the applicant had any friends in common. He mentioned the applicant’s publisher and Mr Das. He said that Mr Das was involved with the publication of the applicant’s book called [Book 1], for example, he chose the cover and proofread the manuscript.
I asked [Dr C] for information on the [Book 1]. He said that it was a critique of Bucaille’s work and was published at a time of upheaval involving fundamentalists.
I asked [Dr C] for information about the reaction to [Book 1] in Bangladesh. He said that he had been at several meetings where the book was mentioned and the reactions were not favourable as it was seen as anti-Islamic. I asked for more information about these meetings. He said that they were not meetings, but gatherings of like-minded people at a [a location] and other places. I observed that it was surprising that like-minded people would have made negative comments about the applicant’s book. He responded that he was not talking about his friends, but about comments made by unknown people at [a location] at the time the book was published. I asked if he knew anything more about the reaction to the applicant’s book in Bangladesh. He said that several of his students who had written about related topics had left the country and one had been killed.
I asked the applicant if there was anything else he would like me to ask [Dr C]. He said that he had no other questions and added that [Dr C] was not aware of the nature of his business.
At the hearing I also spoke to [Mr H] from the National Library of Bangladesh. Prior to contacting him I advised the applicant that when I attempted to access the webpage which provided his details I was directed to a webpage which warned me not to proceed as the related certificate came from a different website and this could mean the site I was attempting to access was not genuine. I observed this raised issues about who had established the webpage with [Mr H’s] details and noted that parts of the National Library website were accessible and others were not. The applicant’s representative said that he had accessed the page by ignoring this warning and added that many Bangladeshi websites had similar warnings. Following the hearing I was able to access the relevant page by other means.
The applicant said that [Mr H] did not know him personally, but could confirm that his book was held at the National Library in Bangladesh. I asked the applicant if he could tell me about the process for lodging a book at the National Library. He said he did not know what these processes were, but the book needed to have an ISBN.
[Mr H] confirmed that he did not know the applicant personally, but he could confirm that both editions of his book had been lodged at the library. He said that books could be lodged by the author or the publisher. I asked if this meant that an author who self-published a book and printed 10 or 20 copies could have a copy lodged and registered at the National Library. He said that this was correct. I noted that the applicant’s book appeared to be registered at the Library as a bibliography or a short story, neither of which appeared to be correct, and asked why his book had been catalogued in that manner. [Mr H] said that under the library’s rules the book fell under the definition for a short story and had been catalogued accordingly.
I asked the applicant and his representative if there were any other questions they would like me to ask [Mr H]. They said that they had no other questions.
I observed that [Mr H’s] evidence suggested that it was a simple matter to self-publish a book and lodge it with the National Library so the fact that his book was lodged there did not appear to mean very much. The applicant agreed that a self-published book could be lodged at the library and that people with a negative intent could do that, but added that commercial publishers would not print only 10 or 20 copies.
On 25 December 2018 the applicant’s adviser provided a further submission in which he argued that the applicant has overwhelming evidence to support his claim that he published a critique of Dr Bucaille’s book, that the book remains publicly available in Bangladesh and that his criticisms have been interpreted as anti-Islamic by fundamentalists. He also submitted that a number of the applicant’s claims are corroborated by independent sources and should be accepted in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
The submission suggests that I read the English translation of the applicant’s book in order to understand why it would be viewed as anti-Islam. It points to a passage which appears to state that Bucaille’s book had influenced Islami militant groups and had a bad effect on the Muslim mentality. It submits that this relates to the applicant’s claim at the hearing that he had blamed Bucaille for the rise of Islamic extremism.
The submission argues that it would be unreasonable to find that the applicant had published or printed only a few copies of his book as there is credible evidence that it was published by a commercial publisher and is publicly available in Bangladesh and it would not make commercial sense for a publisher to print only a few copies of a book.
On 11 January 2019 the applicant’s representative provided a copy of an email from [Mr H] dated [January] 2019 which states that according to his records [Book 1] was submitted by the publisher. He also provided copies of unsuccessful attempts to contact the applicant’s publisher by email to obtain confirmation of his evidence regarding the publication and distribution of his book. It appears that the emails were delivered, but the recipient did not respond.
In light of the advice from [Mr H] that an online catalogue for the National Library of Bangladesh existed but was currently interrupted I again attempted to locate the online catalogue, but without success. I also examined the English language version of the website for the National Library and Archives. I was unable to find anything which suggested that there was an online catalogue for the library’s collection which was currently unavailable. At my request a Bengali speaking Tribunal officer examined the Bengali language website, but was also unable to find any mention of a catalogue which was currently interrupted.
In light of the applicant’s representative’s unsuccessful attempt to contact the applicant’s publisher, I accessed the [social media] page for [a company] which is referred to on the letterhead of the letter provided by the applicant to see whether this shed any light on his lack of response[7]. The page indicates that the publisher is still in business and that the email address used by the applicant’s representative is correct. I also reviewed the books offered for sale on the website. While I was unable to read the text as it was in Bengali there were pictures of the books on sale. The applicant’s book does not appear. I also reviewed the posts dating back to February 2015. There were pictures of many publications, but none of the applicant’s book.
[7] Earlier attempts to access the [social media] page as the address on the letterhead is incomplete.
After considering all of the relevant evidence, I find that the applicant has not provided an honest or an accurate account about the creation and publication of a book entitled [Book 1] in December 2014.
In the first place, as discussed in detail above, I find the applicant’s evidence regarding when and why he decided to write a critique of Dr Bucaille’s work and how the book came to be published lacking in credibility. I believe that he concocted the claims that he was a friend or associate of Ananta Bijoy Das, that he first wrote a critique of Dr Bucaille’s work for inclusion in a magazine published by Mr Das in 2009 and that Mr Das encouraged him to expand the article into a book to support his claim for protection in Australia.
Secondly, I found the applicant’s evidence regarding the publication and sale of [Book 1] to be vague and unconvincing. I find it somewhat unlikely that a publisher would invest in a work by a writer with no previous public profile which critiqued a book published in the 1970s. More significantly, it is not plausible that someone who wanted to influence people by spreading his views on science and logic would have had so little interest in matters such as how the book was to be distributed or how many copies had been produced or sold, particularly as this was his first book.
Thirdly, I found the applicant’s evidence regarding the criticism of his book prior to his departure from Bangladesh confused and unpersuasive. In his written submissions to the Department he said that he heard people criticising the book in Sylhet, but ignored these comments. When asked about this claim at the hearing he initially indicated that a number of people were talking about his book prior to his departure for Australia, but when pressed for details he said only one person, [Mr E], a strong JI supporter, had commented on the book. He said that he and [Mr E] knew each other well and [Mr E] was aware of his views on religion. This is at odds with his earlier evidence that only close friends from the group which met regularly at his home were aware of his views on religion. Furthermore, while it is not uncommon for people with different political or philosophical views to be acquaintances or friends, I find it unlikely that the applicant would have been closely associated with someone who was a blind supporter of JI and implausible that he would have revealed his views on religion to such as person.
Fourth, I found the applicant’s evidence regarding his conversation with [Mr D] shortly after arriving in Australia confused and unconvincing. While it is plausible that a friend with connections to a group such as JI might have made enquiries about Islamist reaction to the applicant’s recently published book and called to advise him that it was viewed negatively as claimed at the hearing, this claim was only raised after I pointed out problems with the applicant’s earlier evidence. In his submissions to the Department he said that [Mr D] had warned him that JI saw his book as anti-Islamic and viewed him as someone who had committed a serious crime against Islam. At the hearing he said that [Mr D] had not specifically suggested him that JI was aware of the book and might harm him, but had called to tell him that Mr Roy and been killed and to warn him that unknown people were targeting progressives. Secular bloggers had been targeted in Bangladesh since 2013 and Mr Roy was killed on 26 February 2015, shortly before the applicant’s departure from Bangladesh. His death was widely published and sparked protests in Bangladesh. If the applicant was a secular thinker and writing and connected to secular bloggers such as Mr Das, I have no doubt he would have been aware of this information prior to leaving Bangladesh and it is not plausible that [Mr D] would have felt the need to call him in Australia to provide this information.
Fifth, I found the applicant’s account of the extremist reaction to his book unpersuasive. I find it extremely difficult to reconcile the applicant’s claim that he wrote a book that was viewed with such animosity by extremists in Bangladesh that his life would be at risk if he returned to Bangladesh with the evidence that nobody else associated with the book, for example, the publisher or bookshops which stock it, have faced problems of any kind. In addition, when I asked the applicant if he had sought any information about any threats or problems following his departure, he indicated that he had not done so because extremists do not provide information about people that they were targeting. According to information from DFAT, Islamic groups published a list of 84 bloggers they were targeting in 2013 and people of interest to extremists were frequently threatened. If the applicant was part of a group of like-minded people who met regularly and discussed their views I believe he would have been aware of this. I also believe he would have asked his wife and publisher about any ongoing threats or problems caused by the book if he genuinely believed that he was being targeted by extremists. In reaching this conclusion I acknowledge that he stated that he had sought information from time to time. However, he made this claim after I advised him that it was my understanding that extremists typically threatened people they are targeting before attacking them, and I believe he made the statement to overcome the problem caused by his earlier statement.
Sixth, I found the written evidence provided by [Dr C] to be lacking in credibility. Despite claiming that he had known the applicant since about 2000 and had visited his home, [Dr C] was unable to provide accurate information about his occupation. More significantly, his evidence regarding the applicant’s career as a writer was vague and unconvincing. He claimed that the applicant had published a number of articles during the time they had known each other, which is at odds with the applicant’s evidence that he had not published any articles following 1997. In addition, his evidence regarding the reaction to the applicant’s book was vague and implausible. He initially claimed that he had heard negative comments about the book when attending meetings or gatherings of like-minded people, but when I observed that this appeared unlikely said that he had merely overheard comments by others at a [location]. Finally, as discussed above, I do not accept that the applicant had any association with Mr Das or that Mr Das was involved in the publication of [Book 1]. I find [Dr C’s] claim that Mr Das was centrally involved in the publication of this book further evidence that he is willing to provide false evidence in support of the applicant’s case.
I also find [Dr C’s] claim that Mr Das had acknowledged him in Logic 3 because he had done the proofreading implausible. His evidence regarding his friendship with Mr Das was confused and the acknowledgement thanks him for [other things], not proofreading. In any event, even if [Dr C] was acquainted with Mr Das, this does not overcome the problems with his evidence or confirm that the applicant was also acquainted with Mr Das.
I accept that [Dr C] and the applicant are acquainted. However, after considering all of the relevant evidence, I do not accept that [Dr C] has provided honest or accurate evidence regarding the applicant’s involvement in secular causes, his association with Mr Das, the publication of his book or the reaction to the publication of that book. I find that he provided false evidence at the applicant’s request and I have given it no weight.
While some of the problems set out above are relatively minor and considered in isolation might not have caused me to reject the applicant’s claims regarding the publication of his book, others are more significant and the overall pattern of his evidence leads me to conclude that he provided false evidence regarding the publication and distribution of [Book 1] and the problems which this caused.
I note in particular my findings that the applicant concocted the claim that he was a close associate of Mr Das and that Mr Das was involved in the publication of [Book 1]. While I acknowledge that applicants sometimes embellish otherwise genuine claims, I do not accept that someone who had been threatened by extremists in Bangladesh following the publication of a book which he had written would have felt the need to add these fraudulent claims. I find the applicant’s willingness to do so and his repeated insistence that these claims are true cast significant doubt on his overall credibility and in particular his claims relating to the publication of [Book 1]. I also found the applicant’s willingness to recruit [Dr C] to provide what I have found to be false evidence particularly telling. If the applicant was genuinely at risk of harm from extremists because he had published a book they believed was critical of Islam I do not believe he would have needed to resort to such measures to provide corroborating evidence to the Tribunal.
After considering all of the relevant evidence, I do not accept that a book written by the applicant critiquing the work of Dr Bucaille was published and distributed for sale in Bangladesh in February 2015. It follows that I do not accept that four extremists visited the applicant’s wife on the day he was flying to Australia to enquire about his whereabouts because they objected to the book and wanted to harm him. I find that these claims were concocted to support the applicant’s application for protection in Australia.
In reaching this conclusion I have considered the supporting documentary evidence provided by the applicant regarding the publication and sale of his book. However, for the reasons set out below I did not find this evidence persuasive and I have given it little weight.
As the applicant confirmed at the hearing, corruption is widespread in Bangladesh and it is easy to obtain false documents or other forms of assistance. Clearly, this does not mean that all documents or supporting evidence coming from Bangladesh should be dismissed without proper consideration. However, it is a relevant consideration when considering documents provided in cases where there are strong reasons to doubt or reject claims made by an applicant. As discussed above, I find many of the claims made by the applicant to lack credibility. In these circumstances and in light of the evidence regarding the ready availability of fraudulent documents in Bangladesh, as discussed further below, I have given little weight to documentary evidence provided by the applicant which cannot be independently verified or substantiated by a credible source.

With regard to the letter from [Mr F], the man the applicant claims published his book, I note that the website for [the company] names the proprietor as [variation of Mr F]. It seems unlikely that [Mr F] would have spelled his name differently on the letter and website. In any event, the letter provided by the applicant could easily have been manufactured by anyone with a computer and a printer and I have given it little weight. It would also be a simple matter to stage the photograph which the applicant claims shows him with [Mr F] and I have given these photographs little weight.
The letter from [Mr I], who identified himself as the managing director of the bookshop [name deleted] could also have been easily created with a computer and printer and I have given it little weight.
In considering these documents I have noted that applicant’s representative’s submission that this evidence should not be rejected without contacting the authors of the letters who, it was suggested, would confirm their authenticity. As discussed at the hearing, taking evidence from third parties located outside Australia presents particular difficulties as it is often not possible to independently establish the identity of the witness.
With regard to the letter from [Mr I], I was unable to locate any entry for [this] Bookshop online. It is not surprising that a bookshop in Bangladesh would not have an English language online presence and the absence of such a presence does not mean it does not exist. It does, however, illustrate the difficulty involved in confirming [Mr I’s] identity and occupation.
With regard to [Mr F], the [social media] page for [the company] appears to confirm that the business exists and that [Mr F] is the owner. However, I note that recent attempts by the applicant and his representative to obtain further information from [Mr F] have been unsuccessful and it appears unlikely that he would respond to a similar request from the Tribunal.
In addition, as discussed above, I found the evidence provided by [Dr C] to be lacking in credibility and believe he provided false evidence at the applicant’s request. The applicant’s willingness to recruit a friend or acquaintance to provide such evidence on his behalf clearly raises issues relating to the usefulness of evidence which other witnesses may provide, particularly witnesses who reside outside Australia and whose identity cannot be easily verified. In these circumstances I decided not to contact the authors of these letters.
With regard to the entries purporting to come from the Online Catalogue, several attempts to access the website using the link provided by the applicant ([website deleted]) between July 2018 and February 2019 were unsuccessful. I was able to locate a directory of online libraries in Bangladesh, but it makes no mention of an online catalogue at the National Library[8]. I was unable to locate anything on the National Library and Archive website ([website deleted]) which suggests that the National Library has an online catalogue. If the National Library had an online catalogue which commenced operation sometime prior to July 2018 I find it highly unlikely that this would not be mentioned on the National Library and Archive website. In addition, I note that the entries provided by the applicant indicate that the applicant’s book was catalogued as a short story and as a bibliography, neither of which is correct. While I acknowledge that standards may be different in countries with limited resources such as Bangladesh, I do not accept that the applicant’s book would have been classified as a short story or bibliography in any library. Considered in light of my findings on the applicant’s general credibility and the evidence regarding corruption in the Bangladesh public service (the National Library is a state institution and [Mr H] a public servant), I find this evidence to be a strong indication that the documents purporting to be entries from an online catalogue are fraudulent.
[8] Online Libraries in Bangladesh, http:>
In reaching this conclusion I have noted the advice from [Mr H] which indicates that the online catalogue exists but is currently interrupted. However, as discussed above, I find it difficult to accept that the catalogue would not be mentioned somewhere on the website of the National Library and Archive website if it existed but was merely interrupted. I also find it difficult to accept that the directory would have been interrupted for such an extended period of time.
Despite these misgivings, for the purposes of this decision, I accept that [Book 1] has been deposited and registered at the National Library and that the library issued the publication with an ISBN number. However, according to [Mr H], publishers or authors can lodge books at the Library and self-publishers who produce only a small number of books can also register their book. In addition, I note that the first edition of applicant’s book was registered despite displaying a non-existent ISBN and his book was registered in the catalogue as a short story and a bibliography, neither of which is accurate. It is clear that the Bangladesh National Library does not apply a rigorous standard when accepting books for deposit. In these circumstances and in light of the evidence regarding widespread corruption in Bangladesh, particularly in the public service, it is clear that it would not be difficult to arrange for the registration of a publication no matter who had produced it or how many copies were printed. In these circumstances, while I accept that copies of [Book 1] may be held at the National Library, I do not accept them to be persuasive evidence that multiple copies of the book were funded and produced by a commercial publisher or that it was offered for sale anywhere in Bangladesh and I have given them little weight in regard to these matters.
With regard to the Wikipedia page provided by the applicant, it does not mention him by name, nor is his book included in the references at the end of the page. As discussed at the hearing, Wikipedia entries can be made or altered by anyone who wishes to do so. In these circumstances, I do not find this page to be persuasive evidence that a book by the applicant critiquing the work of Dr Bucaille was published and widely distributed in Bangladesh in 2015. I have given it little weight.
Finally, I have considered the fact that the applicant has provided several copies of the book, which he claims was published in Bangladesh 2014 and reprinted in 2016, and also provided photographs of a man he claims is his publisher and [Dr C] holding what appears to be copies of the book. Clearly, copies of a book critiquing Dr Bucaille’s work and naming the applicant as author and [company name] as the publisher have been printed in Bangladesh. However, as the applicant himself agreed it is possible to print even a single copy of a book. The fact that several copies of the book exist is not, by itself, evidence that hundreds of copies of the book were produced by a commercial publisher and distributed for sale in Bangladesh. With regard to these claims I have given little weight to the copies of [Book 1] provided by the applicant.
In my assessment of the applicant’s claims, I have considered his representative’s submission that it would be unreasonable to find that the applicant had written an entire book merely to support his application for protection in Australia. In my view it is not surprising that someone who sought to obtain protection in Australia by making false claims would seek fraudulent evidence to support those claims. I make no findings regarding the origin of the text of [Book 1]. However, as agreed by the applicant during his interview with the delegate, a number of critiques of Dr Bucaille’s work have been produced since it was published in the 1970s, including some which contained similar criticisms to those made by the applicant, and it would be a simple matter for the applicant to claim the work of another writer as his own. I note that he has provided a copy of what he claims to be an English language translation of the entire text of the book, which indicates that translation into Bengali from another language would not be difficult to achieve.
The applicant’s activities in Australia
[In] August 2016, an article by the applicant entitled “[title deleted]” was published in [title deleted], a [newspaper] produced in Australia. At the hearing the applicant said that [title deleted] was an ordinary newspaper not known to be critical of Islam. I observed that it was my understanding the writing on [details deleted] in such a newspaper would not cause him to face problems in Bangladesh. He said that there had been no problems so far.
As noted above, following the second hearing the applicant’s representative provided evidence that the applicant posted comments on the [social] group webpage in November 2016. No further evidence has been provided regarding the applicant’s association with this or any other group in Australia.
Conclusions
After considering all of the evidence, I did not find the applicant to be a truthful or a credible witness and find that he has concocted claims central to his application for protection in Australia.
I accept that the applicant is a non-observant Muslim who participates in important religious events such as Ramadan and Eid, but does not attend Mosque. However, I do not accept that he has completely abandoned Islam and become an atheist.
I do not accept that the applicant has had any association with Ananda Bijoy Das or that a book he wrote critiquing the work of Dr Maurice Bucaille was published in Bangladesh in February 2015 or at any other time. It follows that I do not accept that he or anyone associated with him was threatened by extremists in March 2015 or at any other time for these reasons.
I accept that the applicant supports secularism and believes in science and logic. I also accept that he discussed these views with a relatively small number of like-minded friends and acquaintances at social and cultural events or gatherings in Bangladesh. However, I do not accept that he was a public intellectual who was outspoken about his views or that he attempted to convince people outside his circle of friends and acquaintances to accept these views.
I accept that the applicant wrote a few articles which were published prior to 1997 and that he wrote an article on [details deleted], which was published in [deleted] in August 2016. I also accept that he posted comments on [a social] [group] page in November 2016.
CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICANT’S CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
As discussed above, I do not accept that the applicant was a friend or associate of Ananta Bijoy Das or that he wrote a critique of Dr Bucaille entitled [Book 1] or that anyone warned that he was at risk of harm because of his book or that extremists came to his house seeking to locate or harm him because of his book. It follows that I do not accept that he faces a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh for these reasons.
As discussed above, I accept that the applicant is not an observant Muslim and does not attend Mosque. According to evidence from the Pew Research Centre, many Muslims in Bangladesh do not attend Mosque.[9] The applicant did not face any problems prior to leaving Bangladesh because of his failure to attend Mosque and I am unaware of any evidence which suggests that there is a real chance that he will experience serious harm on return to Bangladesh because he is not an observant Muslim.
[9] UK Home Office Country Policy and Information Note, Bangladesh: Religious minorities and atheists, October 2018, paragraph11.4.3.
For the reasons set out above, I do not accept that the applicant is an atheist or that he has abandoned his religion. It follows that I do not accept that there is a real chance that he will experienced serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh for denouncing his religion or expressing atheist views. Furthermore, I do not accept that there is a real chance that he will face serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh because of a perception that he is an atheist.
While I acknowledge that Islamic extremists have sometimes times labelled well-known bloggers or other outspoken people who hold secular views as atheists, the applicant does not have a profile which suggests that he is at risk of being targeted in this way and do not accept that there is a real chance he will be perceived to be an atheist and experience serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh because of this.
Finally, I have noted the applicant’s post on [a social group] in November 2016. As discussed above, no evidence has been provided which suggests that the applicant had any association with this group beyond the post in November 2016 and I have given it little weight when considering his claims to be an atheist. I have also considered whether this post could cause the applicant problems on return to Bangladesh. However, the likelihood that Islamic extremists or anyone else in Bangladesh would become aware of a single comment on a small English language website in Australia remote at best and I do not accept there is a real chance that the applicant would experience serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh as a result of anyone in Bangladesh becoming aware of the post and assuming that the applicant is an atheist.
I accept that the applicant holds secular views and believes in science and logic. I also acknowledge that Islamic extremists have murdered high profile bloggers who have been outspoken in their support for secularism or their opposition to extremism and that the government has periodically succumbed to pressure from extremists and used blasphemy laws against some individuals following complaints from Islamist groups. However, I also note that the Constitution of Bangladesh enshrines the principle of secularism, that the ruling Awami League (AL) is considered to be broadly liberal and secular, that growing numbers of Bangladeshis hold secular views and that, as the applicant confirmed at the hearing, logic and the scientific method are accepted by many people in Bangladesh. The government has proscribed extremist Islamic groups and arrested many militants who have engaged in acts of violence and terrorism in Bangladesh. While these measures have not eliminated extremist groups, the wave of violence which resulted in the deaths of bloggers such as Mr Das ended in 2016, although as noted above, DFAT assesses that high profile anti-Islamist bloggers remain at risk of physical violence.
The applicant is not a high-profile blogger, nor is there any credible evidence which suggests that he has been outspoken about his views or that he has publicly criticised or insulted Islam, the Koran or Islamic extremists. His secular views and support for science and logic are shared and spoken about by many Bangladeshis. While it is true that such views have been construed as anti-Islamic by extremist groups in the past, it is clear from the evidence that such groups generally target outspoken public figures, not people such as the applicant. The applicant did not face any problems for holding these views or discussing them with his friends prior to his departure from Bangladesh. There is no credible evidence before me which suggests that he intends or wishes to be more active or outspoken about his views if he returns to Bangladesh. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that he faces a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh because of his support for secularism, science or logic.
I have considered the applicant’s claim that he will face harm on return to Bangladesh for reasons of political opinion because of his opposition to Islamic extremists. Opposition to Islamic extremists is not uncommon in Bangladesh. As discussed above, the Bangladesh authorities have taken a number of measures to curb such extremism, including arresting violent extremists and banning some groups. While it is also true that Islamic extremists have sometimes targeted people who have criticised or condemned them in the past, these targets are almost always high profile people who make public comments about their views and the evidence indicates that these attacks were relatively few and have lessened since 2016. The applicant has never been publicly critical of Islamic extremists and I do not accept that there is a real chance that he will face serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh because he opposes Islamic extremists.
I accept that the applicant published some articles on scientific or philosophical topics prior to about 1997. However, he did not experience any problems because of these articles prior to his departure from Bangladesh and there is nothing in the evidence before me which suggests that he faces a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh because of these articles.
I accept that the applicant wrote an article on [details deleted]. This issue has been debated by Muslims for some time[10]. However, I am unaware of any evidence which suggests that expressing views on [this] would cause problems with Islamic extremists in Bangladesh or anywhere else. I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh as a result of this article.
[10] [Source deleted].
I have considered the applicant’s claim that he would be at risk of harm on return to he belongs to the particular social group of people born into an Islamic family who express opinions against Islam and the particular social group writers or critics of Islam who question Islam.
I am not convinced either of these collections of people constitute a particular social group in Bangladesh, but in any event there is no credible evidence before me which suggests that the applicant has written or published articles which question or criticise Islam or that he has spoken to anyone apart from a relatively small circle of friends and acquaintances about his views on religion. In these circumstances. I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh because of his membership of either of these groups.
After considering the applicant’s claims singly and cumulatively, I am not satisfied that he faces a real chance of suffering serious harm amounting to persecution for any of the reasons set out in s.5J(1) of the Act. Therefore I am not satisfied that he has a well-founded fear of persecution now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
After considering the applicant’s claims singly and cumulatively, I am not satisfied that he faces a real risk of suffering significant harm on return to Bangladesh. Therefore, I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Bangladesh, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
CONCLUSION
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).
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).
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 criteria in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Roslyn Smidt
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)    the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)    there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)    the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)    conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)    conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)    without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in them practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)    that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)    the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)    the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)    a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)    significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)    significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)    significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)    denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)    disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)    disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)    a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)    the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)    any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)    the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)    protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)    the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)    the person can access the protection; and
(b)    the protection is durable; and
(c)    in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
..
36Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)   the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)   the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)   the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)   it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)   the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)   the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2019] AATA 1722

27 February 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Appeal