1608736 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, who arrived in Australia in 2009, claimed to face harm in Bangladesh due to his family's affiliation with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). He alleged that his brother, who had sponsored his studies in Australia, intentionally sabotaged his student visa applications. The applicant also presented evidence from BNP office bearers in Australia and his mother, who claimed that the Awami League (AL) had targeted his family, leading to difficulties in conducting business and an arson attack on his brother-in-law's home.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either on refugee grounds under s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 or on complementary protection grounds under s.36(2)(aa). This required determining if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Bangladesh, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. The court also considered the relevance of the applicant's brother's alleged political involvement and whether the applicant himself had a well-founded fear of persecution.

The court found that the applicant's responses to questions were confused and incoherent, and that the evidence presented lacked credibility. Specifically, the court noted that the applicant's brother, who was allegedly involved with the BNP and targeted by the AL, was not facing serious harm. Furthermore, the court found no credible evidence to support the conflicting claims made by the applicant and his mother, including the alleged arson attack. The court concluded that there was no real risk of significant harm to the applicant upon return to Bangladesh and that he did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.