1606408 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a Protection visa. The applicant claimed she would face persecution in Bangladesh due to her father's membership and support of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), and because her family would be perceived as wealthy, making her a target for criminal gangs. She also feared abduction, torture, and death, and believed the police would not offer protection due to the influence of the Awami League (AL) government.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa under either the refugee criterion (s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958) or the complementary protection criterion (s.36(2)(aa)). This required determining if she had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm if returned to Bangladesh, based on her imputed political opinion, membership in a particular social group (family of a BNP member), or other grounds.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused heavily on the credibility of the applicant's father, who provided evidence on her behalf. The Tribunal found numerous significant inconsistencies in the father's evidence regarding his political activities in Bangladesh, his alleged persecution, and the circumstances of his arrival in Australia. These included contradictory accounts of when and where his political involvement began, the number and nature of legal cases against him, details of alleged attacks, and the timing of threats in relation to the ruling party's political power. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies between his evidence and documentary evidence, including letters from BNP Australia and fraudulent documents he had previously submitted. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the father's conduct, such as travelling to another country and voluntarily returning to Bangladesh, and obtaining visitor visas for himself and his family, was inconsistent with his claimed fears. The Tribunal concluded that the father was not a credible witness and had fabricated or embellished his evidence to strengthen protection claims. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and was not at risk of significant harm, as her claims were based on the unsubstantiated and incredible evidence of her father.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa, finding that she did not satisfy the criteria under either s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958.