1604065 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection regarding protection visas for applicants from Bangladesh. The first applicant claimed to have converted to Christianity while in Australia, having come from a conservative Islamic family. She feared for her life and stated that if she returned to Bangladesh, she would face threats, pressure to revert to Islam, and potential harm from Islamic groups, asserting that relocation within Bangladesh would not be a viable option due to the close-knit nature of society.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), or alternatively, the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). Specifically, the Tribunal was required to determine if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia, the applicants faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. This involved assessing the nature of the feared harm, whether it was linked to a Convention reason (religion), and whether internal relocation or effective protection measures were available in Bangladesh.

The Tribunal considered Ministerial Direction No. 56, relevant policy guidelines, and country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. While not accepting that the applicants feared direct physical harm from family members, the Tribunal found that as Christian converts returning to Dhaka, they might face isolation and lack of support from their families and the Islamic community. This isolation, coupled with the country information indicating a higher risk of societal violence and pressure for lone converts from Islam without community or family support, led the Tribunal to conclude that the applicants feared harm due to their conversion. The Tribunal determined that this harm constituted "serious harm" as defined by the Act, was motivated by religion, and involved systematic and discriminatory conduct. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that internal relocation was a reasonable option, as the risk of harm was considered to exist throughout Bangladesh, nor were effective protection measures available.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicants had established a real chance of facing harm involving serious harm, and that religion was the essential and significant reason for this fear. The Tribunal set aside the delegate's decision and remitted the matter to the delegate for reconsideration according to law.