1613917 (Refugee)

1613917 (Refugee) [2019] AATA 3743 (7 February 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1613917
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Bangladesh
MEMBER:Linda Symons
DATE:7 February 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 07 February 2019 at 3:34pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Bangladesh – political opinion – Bangladesh National Party (BNP) – Jatiotabadi Chatradal – student politics – political violence – fear of killing – involvement with BNP in Australia – living in hiding – return visit to Bangladesh – credibility issues – inconsistent evidence – bogus documents – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 5K, 5L, 5LA, 36, 65, 424AA, 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 5 August 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Bangladesh, first arrived in Australia [in] March 2015 as the holder of a [Visitor] visa. He departed Australia [in] April 2015. He was granted another [Visitor] visa on 19 August 2015. He returned to Australia [in] January 2016. On 9 March 2016, he was granted a Bridging visa in association with his application for a Protection visa.
The applicant applied to the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) for the Protection visa on 26 February 2016. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that he is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. On 31 August 2016, he applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 20 September 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Bengali and English languages. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by [Mr A] who attended the hearing.
At the end of the hearing, the applicant referred to some documents that had not been provided to the Tribunal. The hearing was adjourned so that the Tribunal could be provided with all the documentary evidence the applicant was relying on.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal for an adjourned hearing on 9 October 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Bengali and English languages. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by [Mr A] who attended the hearing. On 9 October 2018, the hearing was adjourned to 15 November 2018.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal for an adjourned hearing on 15 November 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Bengali and English languages. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by [Mr A] who attended the hearing.
The issues that arise on review are whether the applicant is owed Australia’s protection under the refugee criterion or under the complementary protection criterion.
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, he or she is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, he or she is a refugee if he or she is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is 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.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
In his application for a Protection visa the applicant made the following claims:
·He was born on [date] at [a town] in the district of Lakshmipur in Bangladesh.
·After completing his [school level] in [year], he moved to [District 1] in Dhaka to continue his studies. He lived there until he left Bangladesh.
·He enrolled at [College 1] in Dhaka to complete his [school level]. Whilst studying there he became involved in student politics in the Jatiotabadi Chatradal (JC), the Student Wing of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). He was appointed to the position of [Position 1] in the JC. He completed his [school level] in [year].
·He enrolled at the [named] University in Dhaka and became involved in BNP politics in [District 1]. He was offered the position of [Position 2] of the BNP in [District 1]. He worked hard during the 2008 national elections. Most of the BNP candidates from Laksmipur and Noakhali were successful in the election.
·In 2011, the Awami League (AL) government changed the law in relation to the establishment of a caretaker government during elections. The BNP and twenty other parties objected to this unsuccessfully. Despite this, the government announced an election on 5 January 2014. Only 5% of voters voted in the election.
·After the election in 2014, there were peaceful protests. The government employed Special Police forces, the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), AL activists and criminals to repress the protesters. He was arrested several times while protesting. He was beaten by the Police and has scars on his body.
·There are many criminal law cases against him and the Police are looking for him to arrest him. He was in hiding in Dhaka for more than 6 months to avoid the Police. His parents and relatives advised him to leave the country to save his life.
·If he returns to Bangladesh he will be detained at Dhaka International Airport and the secret Police will kill him.
The applicant has provided to the Department copies of his Bangladeshi passport, two letters dated [in] May 2002 from the Bangladesh JC, a letter dated [in] September 2006 from the Bangladesh JC, two letters dated [in] June 2010 from the Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Jubadal, a letter dated [in] May 2016 from [Mr B], 11 photographs, an undated Charge Sheet and a newspaper article dated [in] October 2015 in the [named newspaper].
The applicant attended an interview with the Department on 2 August 2016. During that interview, he re-iterated and expanded on his written claims. On 5 August 2016, the Department found that he is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and refused his application for a Protection visa.
The applicant has filed with the Tribunal a number of documents including a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated 5 August 2016, a statement dated 10 September 2018 from [Leader C], a statement dated 9 September 2018 from [Leader D], a statement dated 3 August 2018 from [Leader E], a statement dated 10 September 2018 from him, a list of the [Australian Branch 1 leadership], copies of two photographs, a Charge Sheet dated [in] March 2015, a Charge Sheet dated [in] January 2015, High Court Form 22, three letters dated [in] March 2015 from [Police Station 1] to [a specified] Magistrate, an undated statement from [name], an undated statement from [name], a statement dated 10 March 2015 from [name], a statement dated 10 March 2015 from [name], a document titled ‘draft map and index’, an undated document titled ‘statement of victim’, a document dated 24 November 2016 and titled ‘An Allegation’ from [a specified] Magistrate, a statement dated 10 March 2015 from [name], an undated First Information Report (FIR) from [Police Station 1], a statement dated 17 September 2018 from [Leader D] and country information on Bangladesh.
On 19 September 2018, the Tribunal received written submissions from the applicant’s migration agent. In his submissions, he made a new claim that the applicant is at risk of serious harm if he returns to Bangladesh because of his involvement with BNP Australia.
Following the hearing on 20 September 2018, the Tribunal received a further statement from the applicant dated 13 September 2018. The statement refers to several annexures from A to M. The Tribunal was not provided with all the annexures and some of the annexures provided were not the documents referred to in the statement. The Tribunal also received an undated document titled ‘Date of the accused to be presented’ issued by the [named] Court, photographs, a letter dated [in] June 2018 from [Organisation 1, a Bangladeshi organisation in] Australia, a letter dated 5 September 2018 from [Leader D], an article titled ‘[title]’, three articles in [a specified newspaper] dated March 2018 and Sunday March 2018 (sic), [articles from specified websites], a letter dated 20 August 2017 from [Organisation 1], a statement by him dated 13 September 2018, a statement dated 17 September 2018 from [Leader D], a large bundle of documents that relate to two Court cases in Bangladesh in which he is the defendant, photographs, a USB stick, country information on Bangladesh and multiple copies of documents provided previously.
The Tribunal has been provided with a large volume of documents that were translated into English in Bangladesh. These documents are unintelligible. The Tribunal informed the applicant that if he wished the Tribunal to consider these documents he needed to have them translated into English by a NAATI qualified translator and re-submitted to the Tribunal. He was given time to do so. He subsequently resubmitted some of the documents which were translated into English by a NAATI qualified translator.
Receiving country
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Bangladesh and has provided a copy of his Bangladeshi passport to the Tribunal. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal finds that he is a citizen of Bangladesh. The Tribunal finds that Bangladesh is the receiving country for the purpose of assessing his claims for protection under the refugee criteria and the complementary protection criteria.
Third country protection
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is outside his country of nationality. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that he has a right to enter and reside in any country other than his country of nationality.
Assessment of claims
The applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that, when preparing his application for a Protection visa, he obtained immigration advice from his former migration agent, he then filled out his visa application by hand and his former migration agent typed the documents for him. He stated that the information in his visa application was true and correct. He stated that he is satisfied that his visa application is accurate and complete.
During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his background, his family, his education, his employment, his involvement with the BNP in Bangladesh and in Australia, his overseas travel, his reasons for leaving Bangladesh and why he fears returning to Bangladesh. The Tribunal found aspects of his evidence to be vague, contradictory and unconvincing. There were significant inconsistencies between his oral and written evidence and between his evidence and supporting documents that he provided. He made new claims throughout the process. He was unable to give a consistent and coherent account of events. The Tribunal formed the view that he is not a credible witness for the following reasons:
First, in his statement of claims, the applicant claimed that after the general election in Bangladesh in 2014 he was involved in protests and was arrested several times while protesting. He claimed that there are many criminal law cases against him and the Police are looking for him to arrest him. The Tribunal discussed these claims with him. When asked what happened to him after the 2014 elections, he stated that he was targeted from 2008 and in 2009 was falsely implicated in a case on charges of ‘collecting illegal donations’ and was given a custodial sentence. When asked about the length of his custodial sentence, he stated that he was not sentenced. He stated that the Police arrested and detained him, he was granted bail by the Court, the case took a long time and he was acquitted by the Court in 2015.
The applicant’s claims about being targeted since 2008, charged with ‘collecting illegal donations’ and being acquitted by the Court in 2015 are new claims that he did not make in his visa application. The Tribunal would expect that if these things occurred he would have mentioned it in his visa application as it is not something easily forgotten or overlooked. His failure to mention these claims in his visa application is also not consistent with his evidence to the Tribunal that he was satisfied that his visa application is accurate and complete. These issues raise concerns about his credibility and the veracity of these claims.
Second, in his statement of claims, the applicant claimed that he was arrested several times while protesting, he was beaten by the Police and has scars on his body. He has filed with the Tribunal a copy of the Department’s Decision Record dated 5 August 2016 which indicates that he informed the delegate that he was brutally attacked by the Police in 2015 and is lucky to be alive. He provided to the Department two photographs of his bare back with a red mark across the right shoulder. When the Tribunal asked him about this incident, he stated that he was part of a group of people who were walking in a procession. He stated that the Police hit him from behind simultaneously with a baton and a whip.
The applicant stated that he was bleeding and two friends took him to a hospital for medical treatment. He stated that the doctor told him to go home. He stated that he still has scars and medical issues as a result of this incident. When asked if there were any other incidents that he had not mentioned to the Tribunal, he answered no. His evidence raises a number of concerns. Firstly, his written claim that he was arrested several times after the general election in 2014 is not consistent with his oral evidence to the Tribunal that he was arrested once in 2015.
Secondly, the applicant’s oral evidence is that he was beaten by the Police on one occasion in 2015. The Tribunal finds his evidence that he was simultaneously hit from behind by a baton and a whip whilst in a group of people walking in a procession to be implausible. The Tribunal places no weight on the photographs provided as they do not verify the cause of the injury, how it occurred and when it occurred. Thirdly, his evidence to the Tribunal that the doctor at the hospital told him to go home is not consistent with his evidence that he is lucky to be alive after this assault, that he has scars from this assault and still has medical issues as a result of the assault.
Third, in his statement of claims, the applicant claimed that there are many criminal law cases against him and the Police are looking for him to arrest him. In his application for a Protection visa, in response to question 86, he stated that he was not aware that he was the subject of a criminal investigation or had criminal charges pending against him. He gave evidence to the Tribunal that he filled out his visa application by hand after having obtained immigration advice from his former migration agent and that his former migration agent then typed it for him. He also gave evidence to the Tribunal that he was satisfied that his visa application is accurate and complete. This inconsistency in his evidence raises concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
The Tribunal raised this as an issue with the applicant. He responded that he consulted a migration agent who asked him to write down the details and provide him with the relevant documents. He stated that he wrote down the details in Bengali and provided them to his former migration agent who prepared his visa application. He stated that his English is not good so his former migration agent read the document to him after it was prepared. He stated that he must have missed that detail. The Tribunal has difficulty accepting that his former migration agent did not realise the mistake when reading the document to him and that he also missed this detail when the visa application was read to him as this is the crux of his claims for protection. The Tribunal is not persuaded by this explanation.
Fourth, in his statement of claims, the applicant claimed that there are many criminal law cases against him and the Police are looking for him to arrest him. He claimed that he was in hiding in Dhaka for more than 6 months to avoid the Police. In his visa application, which he told the Tribunal was accurate, he stated that he lived at the same address in Dhaka from [year] to January 2016 in response to question 81. This is not consistent with his claims that he was in hiding for more than 6 months to avoid the Police. When the Tribunal raised this as an issue with him and noted that this raised concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims, he responded that he needed to have an address and provided his sister’s address. He stated that since the Police were looking for him he lived in different places at different times.

When the Tribunal sought to clarify whether the applicant’s evidence now is that what he stated in his visa application in relation to his previous addresses is incorrect, he responded that the application form does not ask for dates. He stated that his former migration agent did not explain to him that if he moved from place to place he had to give all the addresses. The Tribunal pointed out to him that he had provided the dates and addresses for when he lived in his village, when he lived in Dhaka and when he lived in Australia in his visa application. The Tribunal informed him that it therefore had difficulty accepting his evidence. He responded that his former migration agent wrote his visa application and asked him for his addresses in his village and Dhaka and did not tell him to list all the places where he lived. He stated that he just provided one address.
The Tribunal does not accept this explanation. Firstly, the applicant’s evidence is not consistent with his earlier evidence to the Tribunal that he filled out his visa application by hand himself and his former migration agent typed it for him. Secondly, if his former migration agent read out the form to him after it was typed as he stated earlier, the Tribunal would expect that to have alerted him to the fact that his answer was incorrect. Thirdly, question 81 in the visa application ‘Previous addresses - Give details of all residential addresses where you have lived in the last 30 years’ also provides for start and end dates. He states in his visa application that he lived at an address in his village in the district of Lakshmipur from [specified year] to [year], at an address in Dhaka from [year] to January 2016 and at an address in Australia from February 2016 onwards. He has not provided a different address (his sister’s address) to cover the period when he claims he was in hiding and lived at different places. The Tribunal is not persuaded by his explanation.
Fifth, in his statement of claims, the applicant claimed that there are many criminal law cases against him and the Police are looking for him to arrest him. He claimed that he was in hiding in Dhaka for more than 6 months to avoid the Police. In his visa application, which he told the Tribunal was accurate, he stated that he worked [in a managerial position] of [a business] in Dhaka from January 2012 to January 2016. He gave evidence to the Tribunal that he was on bail during this period and that it was a condition of his bail that he report to the Court once a month. He stated that he was too busy working to be able to attend Court. The Tribunal raised this as an issue with him and noted that his evidence in relationship to being busy working was not consistent with his claims that he was in hiding for more than 6 months to avoid the Police. The Tribunal noted that this raised concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
The applicant responded that he was not asked where he worked in Bangladesh. He stated that the Tribunal asked him at the beginning of the hearing to please try and answer the questions. He stated that [in his managerial position] he attended the office twice a week. He stated that he did the rest of his job on the telephone. He stated that the owner was associated with the AL and utilised him. When asked how he was ‘utilised’, he responded that when he wanted to leave the job the owner told him that if he was busy he could attend work two days a week and complete pending work. He stated that the owner told him that he would talk to the Police and the Member of Parliament and sort out his problems. He stated that if he was with him he hoped nothing would happen to him
The Tribunal does not accept this explanation. Firstly, the applicant’s evidence is that he completed his visa application by hand, his former migration agent typed it for him and read it back to him after it was typed. In answer to question 84 about the details of his employment and unemployment, he provided one address and did not indicate that he worked at any other location. Secondly, the Tribunal finds it implausible that he would have held the [managerial position] and only attended his place of employment two days a week. Thirdly, his evidence that his employer was associated with the AL and told him he would talk to the Police and the Member of Parliament to sort out his problems are new claims that he has not mentioned previously. If this was the reason why he avoided being arrested for many years, the Tribunal would have expected him to have mentioned this in his visa application.
Fourthly, if the applicant continued to attend his place of employment two days a week during the years that the Police were trying to find him and arrest him, the Tribunal would expect the Police to have arrested him at his place of employment. The Tribunal is not persuaded by his explanation.
Sixth, the applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that, besides the case in 2009 when he was falsely charged with ‘collecting illegal donations’, he was also falsely charged in relation to two other matters. He gave evidence that there was a case against him in relation to [a specified charge, Offence 1] and he was also charged with [Offence 2]. When asked about the case in relation to [Offence 1], he responded that he received a Notice from the Police Station in June or July 2015 asking him to attend the Police Station in relation to some pending issue. He stated that he found out from his lawyer at the end of 2015 that there were some allegations against him, got scared and did not attend the Police Station. He stated that he was charged in relation to this matter. When asked whether he attended Court, he responded that a warrant for his arrest had been issued in 2015 and if he had attended Court he would have been arrested.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the third Court case in relation to [Offence 2]. He stated that when he visited Australia in March 2015 his lawyer informed him that the first case in relation to ‘collecting illegal donations’ was going to be finalised. He stated that when he returned to Bangladesh he and his friend were arrested by the Police and charged with [Offence 2]. He stated that this friend lived in his village, was his neighbour and was a BNP supporter. When asked his friend’s name, he stated that he could not recall his name. He stated that he was in custody for [a period] before being granted bail on condition that he attended Court regularly and if he failed to attend his bail would be cancelled. He stated that he attended Court once in relation to the [Offence 2] charge. When asked why he stopped attending Court, he responded that he was “overloaded” with his business and other commitments. He stated that the Police were harassing him, went to his house with a warrant, spoke to his father, his father was afraid and told him they would kill him if they picked him up.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how many Court attendances he missed. He responded that he did not keep in touch with the Court and was unaware of the Court dates. He stated that he became afraid and went to [Country 1]. He stated that he was represented by a lawyer in relation to the Court cases. When asked whether his lawyer informed him of the Court dates, he responded that his lawyer contacted him and he told his lawyer that he was busy, could not attend Court and asked him to lodge a petition. He stated that his lawyer informed him that a second warrant for his arrest had been issued. He stated that he was subsequently able to obtain copies of the warrants.
The applicant has provided to the Department a document titled Charge Sheet. It refers to an incident [in] January 2015 when a group of BNP supporters allegedly damaged [property]. The applicant is named as one of the [number] accused. The Charge Sheet indicates that he had absconded and sought the issue of an arrest warrant. The Tribunal has been provided with a bundle of documents in relation to this charge and the [Offence 2 charge].
The documents in relation to the charge of [Offence 2] indicate that a young person was [the victim of an offence committed] by [number] people [in] March 2015 and subsequently rescued by the Police. They indicate that two of the alleged [offenders] were arrested by the Police and the applicant is named as one of the alleged [offenders] who had been arrested. Documents dated [in] March 2015 from the Police to the [specified] Court in Dhaka indicate that the applicant and his co-accused were taken before the Court, the Prosecutor was opposed to the granting of bail to the two accused and sought that they be remanded in custody. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that he was in custody for [a period] before being granted bail.
The evidence before the Tribunal is that the applicant came to Australia for the first time [in] March 2015 and departed Australia [in] April 2015. If he was arrested in relation to [Offence 2] [in] March 2015, was taken before the Court on [a date in] March 2015 and was held in custody for [a period] before being granted bail, he would still have been in custody in Bangladesh at the time he arrived in Australia [later in] March 2015. This raises concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims. It also raises concerns in relation to the authenticity of the documents in relation to the Court cases that he has provided to the Department and the Tribunal.
Seventh, the applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that he came to Australia in March 2015 to attend [a specified event]. In his visa application, he stated that he went to [Country 2] for a visit between [March] and [April] 2015 and went to [Country 1] for a visit between [dates in] August 2015 and [October] 2015. The dates in relation to his visit to [Country 2] are incorrect as he was in Australia at that time. His passport indicates that he visited [Country 2] between [specified dates in] June 2015. His evidence is that he went to [Country 2] to do some shopping and to [Country 1] and [Country 3] to do some sightseeing. He subsequently claimed that he was in hiding in [Country 1]. These visits are not consistent with his claims that he had three criminal law cases pending against him in which he had instructed a lawyer, he was on bail, there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest and the Police were looking for him. The Tribunal raised this as an issue with him and noted that his conduct was not consistent with his claims and raised concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
The applicant responded that he initially only had one case pending for which he was granted bail. He stated that the other two cases were commenced after he returned to Bangladesh from Australia in April 2015. He stated that when he came to Australia to attend the [specified event] the second and third charges were not “hanging over his head”. The Tribunal pointed out to him that the incident in relation to [Offence 1] took place [in] January 2015 and [Offence 2] took place [in] March 2015. The Tribunal noted that both incidents took place before he came to Australia in March 2015. He responded that he was initially not implicated in these cases and was implicated at a later date.
The Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that the Charge Sheet dated [in] January 2015 named him as one of the accused and noted that his evidence was not consistent with the supporting documents he had provided. He responded that his lawyer told him that the case started a long time ago but he was not included as an accused until a later date. The Tribunal pointed out that it had a document before it that indicated that he was arrested and taken before the Court ([in] March 2015). He responded that he was not in gaol in relation to [Offence 1]. The document the Tribunal was referring to was in relation to the [Offence 2] charge.
The Tribunal does not accept the explanation given by the applicant. His evidence directly contradicts the documents he has provided to support his case. These contradictions and his conduct raise concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Eighth, the records of the Department indicate that the applicant first arrived in Australia [in] March 2015 and departed Australia [in] April 2015. He did not apply for a Protection visa at that time and voluntarily returned to Bangladesh. The Tribunal put this information to him, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that it would expect that if he had criminal cases pending against him, there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest and he feared serious harm in Bangladesh he would have obtained immigration advice and lodged an application for a Protection visa at that time. The Tribunal noted that his conduct raised concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
The applicant responded that he had a pending Court case from 2009 and was granted bail in relation to that case. He stated that after he was granted bail he thought his problem was solved. He stated that when he returned to Bangladesh from Australia he was arrested. The Tribunal asked him why he thought his problem was solved when he was granted bail when he was still required to attend Court. He responded that his lawyer informed him that there was a possibility that he would not have a problem in relation to the case commenced in 2009. He stated that he was subsequently acquitted (in 2015) in relation to this case. He stated that when he returned to Australia he found out that there was a new case against him and this created havoc. He stated that he went to [Country 1] and was in hiding there for two months. He stated that from [Country 1] he went to [Country 3]. He stated that he understood that he could then travel to Australia and apply for a Protection visa but that it would take a long time to resolve the issue. He stated that he thought he could live in Bangladesh if the problem was resolved.
The Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that he voluntarily return to Bangladesh after his visit to [Country 1]. He stated that he did not have the opportunity to stay longer in [Country 1]. He stated that he returned to Bangladesh as his father had given the Police “a lot of money “to solve the problem and he thought the problem would be “suppressed”.
The Tribunal does not accept this explanation. Firstly, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence that he thought his problem was solved because he was granted bail to be implausible. Secondly, he made no reference to the outstanding warrant for his arrest. Thirdly, his response in relation to there being only one pending Court case (from 2009) when he came to Australia in March 2015 is not consistent with the supporting documents that he has provided the Tribunal and are referred to above. They indicate that he had three pending Court cases at the time he came to Australia in March 2015.
Fourthly, the supporting documents provided by the applicant indicate that he was arrested and taken before the Court [in] March 2015 in relation to [the Offence 2] charges. This was [number] days before he arrived in Australia [in] March 2015 and at a time when he was supposedly in custody in Bangladesh. It is also not consistent with his evidence that he was arrested after he returned to Bangladesh from Australia. Fifthly, at the end of the first hearing he stated that he made a mistake with the dates and was released on bail in relation to the [Offence 2] case a couple of days before he departed for Australia for his first visit. He did not seek to explain the many inconsistencies between this evidence and his previous evidence.
Sixthly, the applicant’s evidence that he returned to Bangladesh because his father had bribed the Police and he thought the problem would be suppressed are new claims that he has not made in his visa application. His failure to mention this in his visa application raises concerns about the credibility of this claim. The Tribunal is not persuaded by his explanation.
Ninth, the records of the Department indicate that the applicant was granted a Visitor visa on 19 August 2015. However, he did not arrive in Australia until [January] 2016. The Tribunal put this information to the applicant, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that his delay of 4 ½ months to arrive in Australia after he was granted the Visitor visa is not consistent with his claims. The Tribunal noted that it would expect that if he was in fear for his life in Bangladesh he would have got the first available flight out of Bangladesh after being granted the Visitor visa. The Tribunal noted that his conduct raised concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
The applicant responded that he did not initially plan to settle down in Australia. He stated that his parents, wife and siblings are in Bangladesh. He stated that he was hoping that the problem could be resolved and he could live a normal life. He stated that he went to [Country 1] and stayed there for some time. The Tribunal pointed out to him that this is not consistent with his earlier evidence that his father advised him to leave Bangladesh and he decided to do so in June or July 2015. He stated that, at one stage, he thought that if he came to Australia and applied for protection he may not get it. He stated that he thought he could stay in Bangladesh and have a stable life if the problem was resolved. He stated that the problems increased day by day so he decided to come to Australia.
The Tribunal does not accept this explanation as it is not consistent with the applicant’s own evidence. His evidence is that the first Court case was commenced in 2009 and he was acquitted in relation to this case in 2015. The supporting documents indicate that the second and third Court cases were commenced in January 2015 and March 2015 respectively. His evidence is that he did not attend Court as required and warrants for his arrest were issued in relation to these two cases. His evidence is that he was in hiding from the Police for six months prior to leaving Bangladesh to come to Australia for the second time. He left for his second trip to Australia [in] January 2016 and would therefore have been in hiding from July 2015. In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds it implausible that he would have thought, at the time he received his Australian Visitor visa in August 2015, that these problems would be resolved or that his problems increased thereafter. The Tribunal is not persuaded by his explanation.
Tenth, the evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant departed or entered Bangladesh on at least [number] occasions between March 2015 and January 2016. During this period, he was on bail that he was not complying with and had a warrant and subsequently two warrants issued for his arrest. Despite this, he was able to exit and re-enter Bangladesh without being arrested by the authorities. The Tribunal raised this as an issue with him and noted that this raised concerns in relation to the credibility of his claims. He responded that a warrant for his arrest was at his local Police Station. He stated that the “Police system” is not developed in Bangladesh and the immigration Police would not have any record of the warrant. He stated that on these [number] occasions he had to twice bribe the Police. He stated that they said they were going to check him and he panicked and gave them money. When asked if there was any reason why he had not mentioned this previously, he answered no.
The Tribunal does not find his explanation to be persuasive. Firstly, this evidence is not consistent with his own evidence in his revised statement dated 10 September 2018 in which he stated that if he returns to Bangladesh he will be caught at Dhaka International Airport and the AL secret Police will kill him. Secondly, his evidence that he bribed the Police on two occasions is another new claim that he has not mentioned in his visa application. The Tribunal would expect that if this happened he would have mentioned it in his visa application. Thirdly, his passport indicates that he travelled to [Country 2] between [dates in] June 2015. Therefore, during this period, he has in fact travelled to and from Australia, [Country 2] and [Country 1] before finally departing for Australia [in] January 2016 and went through immigration controls at the airport on [number] occasions without being arrested. The Tribunal would expect that if he was of adverse interest to the Bangladeshi authorities he would have avoided putting himself in a situation where he would be scrutinised by the authorities.

Eleventh, the records of the Department indicate that the applicant arrived in Australia for a second time [in] January 2016 on a Visitor visa. He gave evidence to the Tribunal that he came to Australia [in] January 2016 to seek asylum here. He did not lodge an application for a Protection visa until 29 February 2016. The Tribunal raised this as an issue with him and noted that his delay in applying for protection is not consistent with his claims and raised concerns in relation to the credibility of his claims. He responded that he did not know that it was a requirement to apply for protection just after he arrived. He stated that he discussed this with other friends who he met in Australia and was advised that he could apply for protection at any time. He stated that they said he could apply within 28 days or a month.
The Tribunal does not find the applicant’s explanation to be persuasive. The Tribunal is of the view that if he came to Australia for the purpose of seeking asylum here because he was in fear for his life in Bangladesh that would have made that his priority, sought immigration advice and lodged an application for a Protection visa as soon as possible after his arrival here.
Twelfth, the applicant has provided to the Department and the Tribunal a number of supporting documents in relation to his association with the BNP in Bangladesh. There are a number of problems with these documents that cause concern for the Tribunal in relation to their authenticity. For instance, one of the documents is a letter dated [in] September 2006 from the [Office Bearer 1] of the Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Chhatradal. It states that the applicant is the [Position 1] of the Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Chatradal at [College 1]. His evidence is that he attended [College 1] between [specified earlier years]. He was therefore not at [College 1] in 2006 as stated in the letter.
Another document provided by the applicant is a letter dated [in] May 2016 from [Mr B] who indicates that he is a Barrister [and held several BNP and legal positions]. This letter states, among other things, that “ruling Awami League armed workers” attacked the applicant several times. The Tribunal discussed the applicant’s claims with him over three lengthy hearings and discussed incidents in some detail. He was asked whether any other incidents had taken place that had not been discussed and he assured the Tribunal that all incidents had been discussed. During his evidence, he made no mention of him or any member of his family being attacked by armed AL workers. This raises concerns in relation to the reliability of the evidence given by [Mr B] and his credibility as a witness.
Another document provided by the applicant is a letter dated 3 August 2018 from [Leader E] who indicates that he is a former Member of Parliament and [Office Bearer 2] of the BNP in Bangladesh. This letter is in the same format as the letter from [Mr B] and some of the phrases and sentences are identical to the letter from [Mr B]. This letter states that the applicant and his family were attacked on a few occasions by AL supporters, that he and his family were threatened by “Awami govt people” and that they have no security in Bangladesh. The applicant has not made any claims that he and his family were attacked on a few occasions by AL supporters and that his family were threatened by “Awami govt people”. This raises concerns in relation to the reliability of the evidence given by [Leader E] and his credibility as a witness.
Another document provided by the applicant is an article in the [named] newspaper dated [in] October 2015. It indicates that multiple false cases had been filed against the applicant and that he was on the run. It states that most of the cases are in relation to [Offence 1 and related incidents] and there are some cases in relation to “[other specified] activities”. It indicates that his business office had been shut down for months. It indicates that he could not meet his parents, wife and children for fear of being arrested by the Police. There are many aspects of this article that are not consistent with the applicant’s evidence.
The applicant’s evidence is that there is one case against him in relation to [Offence 1]. He has not claimed that there are any cases against him in relation to [the other related incidents] and “[other specified] activities”. He has not claimed that he had his own business and that it was shut down for months. His evidence is that he held [a managerial position] and worked for someone else. His evidence is that he worked at his last place of employment from January 2012 until January 2016 when he left Bangladesh to travel to Australia. His evidence is that he has a wife but does not have any children. In view of the many concerns the Tribunal has in relation to the applicant’s credibility, the authenticity of the other supporting documents from Bangladesh that he has provided and for the above reasons, the Tribunal has doubts in relation to the authenticity of this document.
The Tribunal raised as an issue with the applicant its concerns in relation to the authenticity of the supporting documents he had provided. He responded that his oral evidence and the documents provided are genuine. He stated that because of his previous suffering and the agony he faced it is difficult for him to remember dates and times. He has not provided the Tribunal with any evidence from a professional in relation to his mental health or any problems he may have remembering dates and times. The Tribunal does not accept that his alleged difficulty remembering dates and times explains the many problems with the supporting documents that he has provided.
The Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that the problems with his supporting documents were not confined to dates and times but also, for instance, to references to incidents that he had not mentioned. He responded that if there are any discrepancies he requested the Tribunal to accept his oral evidence.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant country information on Bangladesh which indicates that the use of fraudulent documents is widespread in Bangladesh and that it is very easy to obtain fraudulent documents including FIRs and other Police documents, Court documents, letters from political parties, newspaper articles etc. [1] [2] [3] The Tribunal raised as an issue with him its concerns in relation to the authenticity of the supporting documents he had provided. He responded that the documents he submitted are genuine and not forged. He stated that he has no objection to the Tribunal verifying the documents. He stated that if the Tribunal finds that the documents are fraudulent he will accept that.
[1] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, ‘Bangladesh: Reports of fraudulent documents, 20 September 2010’, BGD103532.E.
[2] Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, ‘Bangladesh: Reports of fraudulent documents (2011-2015)’, 20 August 2015, BGD105263.E.
[3] U.S visa applicants cautioned against use of fraudulent documents, U.S Embassy in Bangladesh, 5 May 2015. (>
Thirteenth, the applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal that he joined one of the three BNP Australia organizations based in [City 1] in 2016. He stated that he was appointed the [Position 3] of BNP Australia in about June 2017. He stated that a [Branch 1] of BNP Australia was formed in [year] and he was appointed the [Position 4]. He has filed with the Tribunal a statement dated 13 September 2018 in which he states that he was appointed the [Position 5] of BNP Australia in 2017 and made no mention of being appointed the [Position 4] of the [Branch 1]. He has provided the Tribunal with an article dated [2018] and titled ‘[title]’ which was published in a Bangladeshi community newspaper in [Australia]. This article refers to the inauguration of [Branch 1] of BNP Australia and lists the names/office holders of the Branch including that of the applicant.
The applicant has provided the Tribunal with a letter dated [in] August 2017 from BNP Australia confirming that he was appointed [Position 5] of BNP Australia [in] August 2017. He has provided the Tribunal with a letter dated 5 September 2018 from [Leader D] which states that he was appointed [Position 5] of BNP Australia in 2016 and [Position 4, variation] of [Branch 1] of BNP Australia in July 2018. [Leader D’s] letter dated 5 September 2018 refers to the applicant being appointed to the position of [Position 5] of BNP Australia a year earlier than stated by the applicant. It contains the statement “In December 2008 & 2014 till now, the Awami league lead by Shekh Hasina came to power with military assistance of government, the leaders and activist of the Awami League became revengeful towards BNP and other opposition activists in present political climate.” (sic)This identical paragraph is contained in the statement from [Leader E] dated 3 August 2018 even though [Leader E’s] letter was allegedly written in Bangladesh and [Leader D’s] letter was allegedly written in Australia.
The applicant has provided to the Tribunal a letter dated [in] June 2018 which is titled ‘[Branch 1] BNP Full Exutive Committee 2018-2020” (sic). It sets out various positions on the Executive Committee and the names of the office holders. It indicates that the applicant is the [Position 4, variation]. The letter is signed by the [Office Bearer 1] ([Leader D]) and the [Position 4] ([Leader D]). [Leader D] is not named as a member of the Executive Committee but signs the letter as the [Position 4] which is the position that the applicant was appointed to. These issues raise concerns in relation to the reliability of these documents and the credibility of the applicant’s evidence in relation to positions he holds in BNP Australia and [Branch 1] of BNP Australia.
Fourteenth, the applicant gave evidence that he has been involved in various activities with BNP Australia. He has filed with the Tribunal a statement dated 13 September 2018 in which he sets out the BNP related activities he has been involved in. He gave evidence that on 1 July 2016 there was an attack on a restaurant in Dhaka which resulted in 29 people being killed. He stated that BNP Australia organised a commemoration to respect those who lost their lives in this incident. He stated that BNP Australia launched a programme to increase its membership and renew existing memberships in August 2017 and he was involved in that. He has provided an article dated [2017] in [name], a [newspaper] published in [City 1], which refers to a BNP Australia program to increase its membership. It contains a photograph of a group of people including the applicant.
In his statement dated 13 September 2018, the applicant stated that BNP Australia organised a protest in [City 2] [in] February 2018 against the imprisonment of Begum Begum Khaleda Zia. He stated that the protest was [at specified locations]. His evidence is that members from all three BNP Australia organizations attended the protest and there were [number] people there. He has provided the Tribunal with photographs showing a group of people, including him, standing [at these locations] holding banners.
The applicant has also provided a copy of an article dated [2018] in the [named] newspaper published in Australia. This article refers to BNP Australia having a protest rally [at these locations] [in] February 2018 and to Memorandum being sent to the Australian Foreign Minister, Bangladesh President and High Commission. [Details deleted.] He has provided another article in [a newspaper] dated March 2018 referred to BNP Australia organizing a ‘Public Signatures Program” on 18 February 2018 demanding the release of Begum Khaleda Zia.
The applicant gave evidence that a Memorandum was prepared requesting that Begum Khaleda Zia not be arrested. He stated that two of the leaders from two of the three BNP Australia organizations gave this Memorandum to the Bangladesh High Commission and to the Australian Foreign Minister (Julie Bishop at that time). He stated that a separate petition was also prepared and members of the three organizations signed that petition. He stated that he was not aware of what happened to that petition. He stated that, following a Court case, Begum Khaleda Zia was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. He stated that BNP Australia organized a petition calling for her release and he helped to collect signatures for the petition
The applicant stated that, since his arrival in Australia, he has attended most functions organised by BNP Australia and has donated money for the functions. He stated that [in] August 2018 they had a function to celebrate the 74^th birthday of Begum Khaleda Zia. He stated that the BNP was formed on 1 September 1978 under the leadership of General Rahman and BNP Australia organised a party to celebrate this anniversary. He stated that meetings and functions take place at various restaurants in [City 1] where members gather for dinner and meetings or celebrations. He stated that he attended a seminar on 22 April 2018 organised by the [Agency 1].
The applicant has had photographs taken of his attendance at these activities and provided them to the Tribunal. He has provided an article in [a named website] showing photographs of a large group of men, including him, [at an event] and photographs of a large group of people, including him, attending a seminar. He has provided photographs and an article in a Bangladeshi community based newspaper in relation to a celebration in September 2018 to mark the 40^th anniversary of the founding of the BNP.
The applicant gave evidence that the Bangladesh Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, came to Australia in April 2018 to attend [a meeting] [in] April 2018 where she was given an award. He stated that BNP Australia organised a protest at [location 1] [in] April 2018 and [at location 2] [on another date]. He stated that he attended the protest on [the latter day]. He stated that there were [number estimate] Bangladeshis at the protest [in] April 2018 including people who were not associated with any political party. He stated that the protesters had banners and slogans.
The applicant stated that, because of the protest, Sheikh Hasina was taken into the [location] through the back entrance to avoid the protestors at the front of the [location]. He stated that the protestors did not see her, some of the protesters got “excited”, stepped on her photograph and said something “in a high voice”. He stated that he [participated in protest actions]. He stated that this news was published internationally and, as a result of their actions, they have been targeted from all over the world. When asked where this was published, he responded that they were published in Australian newspapers and TV channels in Australia.
The applicant has provided the Tribunal with articles in the Australian media in relation to protests against the Bangladeshi Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina, “by Bangladeshi people residing in Australia” on [dates in] April 2018. He has also provided an article dated May 2018 in a Bangladeshi community newspaper published in Australia which contains photographs of the protests, questions why Sheikh Hasina was granted an award in light of the human rights abuses against women in Bangladesh and notes that her trip to Australia was funded by the Bangladeshi government. He has provided an article dated [in] April 2018 in [a website] which referred to Bangladeshi expatriates participating in protests against Sheikh Hasina. He has provided the Tribunal with an USB stick containing four amateur videos of the protest on [a date in] April 2018 which show the protesters outside [location 2] chanting “Sheikh Hasina go back, go back”.
In his statement dated 13 September 2018, the applicant claimed that he delivered speeches [near location 2] [in] April 2018. He did not make this claim in his oral evidence to the Tribunal. He also claimed in his statement dated 13 September 2018 that, as a result of his participation in the protest [in] April 2018 he became the target of AL leaders and activists from all over the world. He claimed that, because of his involvement with [Branch 1] of one of the three BNP Australia organizations, he attracted the attention of the BNP leadership and the hatred of AL activists.
The Tribunal asked the applicant how he was targeted by people from around the world. He responded that what he meant was AL supporters and their associates. When asked how they targeted him, he stated that he published this information on his [social media] account and other people did as well. The Tribunal asked him how he attracted the attention of the BNP leadership and the hatred of AL activists because of his involvement with [Branch 1] of one of the three BNP Australia organizations. He responded that his activities were not designed to attract the leadership of the BNP but because he loves his country. When asked again to explain how he attracted the attention of the BNP leadership, he responded that by attending meetings and activities regularly and fulfilling responsibilities given to him he has attracted the attention of the BNP leadership in Australia. When asked how he attracted the hatred of AL activists because of his involvement in [Branch 1] of one of the three BNP Australia organizations, he responded that he always had a good relationship with AL activists and they were very friendly but now they are not as friendly. He stated that from this point of view they are showing their hatred towards him.
Despite being given the opportunity and time to provide further evidence, the applicant has not provided any documentary evidence to support his claims of being targeted by AL supporters and their associates from all over the world because of his involvement in BNP related activities in Australia. The Tribunal does not accept these claims.
Fifteenth, the applicant has provided the Tribunal with a number of other supporting documents including a copy of an article dated March 2018 in the [named] newspaper published in Australia. This article refers to his involvement with the BNP in Bangladesh, refers to him as the leader of [another Bangladeshi community] organization [named], being very politically active, the government filing a false case against him because of jealousy over his political skills, experience and leadership, a warrant being issued against him, the service of a ‘notice for attachment of movable and immovable properties’ and refers to his position in BNP Australia. The article also has a photograph of him. This photograph is identical to the photograph attached to his application for a Protection visa.
The Tribunal discussed this article with the applicant. He stated that a representative from the community newspaper spoke to him about his situation in Bangladesh and he told him that the Police had issued a warrant in relation to his case. He stated that an article was then written about him and published. When asked whether this was done with his consent, he answered no. When asked whether he provided the author with his photograph, he answered no. When asked whether he could explain how the author was able to obtain the photograph he used in his application for a Protection visa, he responded that he obtained 40 copies of the photograph and gave it to other people and the author may have got it from one of them.
The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence to be implausible and does not accept that he was not aware that the author was going to publish an article about him or that he did not provide the author with a copy of his photograph. The contents of this article are based on information provided by him to the author and it is a self-serving document. The Tribunal does not place any weight on this article.
Sixteenth, the applicant has provided the Tribunal with an article dated [in] July 2018 in the [named newspaper]. This article refers to the inauguration of [Branch 1] of BNP Australia at a meeting on Sunday [date] 2018. It refers to the members of the Executive Committee by name and title. It contains photographs of the [Office Bearer 1] and [Position 4] (the applicant). This raises concerns for the Tribunal in relation to how a reporter in Bangladesh would have been able to obtain a copy of the applicant’s photograph. The [date in] 2018 was a Friday and not a Sunday as stated in the article. For these reasons and the many other concerns, referred to herein, that the Tribunal has in relation to the authenticity of the documents from Bangladesh provided by the applicant, the Tribunal is not satisfied as to the authenticity of this document.

Seventeenth, among the supporting documents provided to the Tribunal is a copy of a statement dated 10 September 2018 from [Leader C]. His titles are [specified role in] of BNP Australia and [another role in a named agency in] Australia. He describes BNP Australia as a non-profit organization and states that its function is to support the aims and objectives of BNP Bangladesh, raise awareness of what is happening to the BNP and its members in Bangladesh and support expatriates from Bangladesh living in Australia including helping them to obtain visas. In his statement he provides his history and states that he returned to Bangladesh in 2015. He stated that “Awami supporters tried to assault me whilst I was in Bangladesh because they were aware of my involvement in BNP. Fortunately for me, a contact that I had in the Police Force helped me to escape political persecution on my visit to Bangladesh and I departed early. This demonstrates that if [the applicant] and his family were returned to Bangladesh, they would also experience political persecution as a result of [the applicant’s] involvement in BNP Australia.”
In his statement, [Leader C] indicates that he was informed that the applicant was an active member and [Position 2] in the [District 1 branch], his life was in danger because he was engaged in demonstrations and strikes and was targeted for political persecution. He indicates that he was informed that there is a false case against him and that he will be arrested if he returns to Bangladesh. He confirmed that the applicant joined BNP Australia in early 2016, has attended meetings and demonstrations and is the current [variation of Position 5 title] of BNP Australia and [Position 4] of [Branch 1] of BNP Australia. He stated that he sees him almost every week.
In his statement, [Leader C] has not indicated the source of his knowledge about the applicant’s situation in Bangladesh. If it is based on information provided to him by the applicant, it has no probative value. His reference to the applicant’s family being returned to Bangladesh and there being a false case against him is not consistent with the applicant’s evidence that he has no family in Australia and there are two false cases against him. This raises doubts as to his knowledge of the applicant’s current circumstances notwithstanding his statement that he sees him almost every week. Sentences and entire paragraphs in his statement are identical to a statement provided by [Leader D] and this raises concerns in relation to the reliability of his evidence. As he did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal was unable to seek clarification from him or to test his evidence. In view of his evidence that one of the functions of BNP Australia is to assist Bangladeshis living in Australia to obtain visas, the Tribunal is of the view that he has a vested interest in the outcome of this application and does not consider him to be an independent witness. The Tribunal places no weight on his evidence.
The applicant has provided the Tribunal with three statements dated 5 September 2018, 9 September 2018 and 17 September 2018 from [Leader D]. His title is [Office Bearer 1] of BNP Australia. His statement dated 5 September 2018 raises some concerns for the Tribunal which are discussed in paragraphs 72 and 73 above. His statement dated 9 September 2018 is in the same format and contains identical paragraphs and sentences to [Leader C’s] statement. He stated that he last visited Bangladesh in 2018. His statement even includes the following identical statement that is contained in [Leader C’s] statement “Awami supporters tried to assault me whilst I was in Bangladesh because they were aware of my involvement in BNP. Fortunately for me, a contact that I had in the Police Force helped me to escape political persecution on my visit to Bangladesh and I departed early. This demonstrates that if [the applicant] and his family were returned to Bangladesh, they would also experience political persecution as a result of [the applicant’s] involvement in BNP Australia.”
In his statement dated 17 September 2018, [Leader D] stated that he had telephoned [Leader E] in relation to the applicant, was informed that they had written and signed documents for him and confirmed that he was the [Position 2] of the [District 1 branch, name variation]. He stated that he contacted a Sub Inspector in Dhaka and was informed that “the file is genuine and correct” in relation to the two cases against the applicant.
[Leader D] attended the first Tribunal hearing and gave evidence. He stated that he met the applicant in January 2016. He stated that they had a preparation meeting on 26 March 2016 but he had joined their political programme in early January 2016. He stated that he told him about his involvement in the BNP in Bangladesh and that he had some false cases against him in Bangladesh. He stated that he also spoke to a [Position 1] he knew in Bangladesh ([Leader E]) who confirmed that he was an active member and had a case against him. He stated that, since he was appointed [Office Bearer 1] of BNP Australia in 2016, he has issued more than one hundred letters of support to Bangladeshi asylum seekers. He stated that there are one hundred and one members in the Executive Committee and he knows every one of them.
The Tribunal discussed with [Leader D] the letters of support that he had provided the applicant. He stated that he prepared both statements himself. He stated that he “prepared” the applicant’s activities, obtained information from Bangladesh and then combined that information in the documents. When asked whether he received anyone’s help when preparing the documents, he answered no. The Tribunal asked him whether he could explain why his statement dated 9 September 2018 had the same formatting and even some identical paragraphs to another written statement received by the Tribunal. He responded that most of the BNP grassroots activists have similar cases and the information is the same. He stated that they keep a data base. When asked whether he used a template for his statement, he responded no. He stated that they got most of the information from their Party.
The Tribunal has a number of concerns in relation to [Leader D’s] evidence. Firstly, he is the [Office Bearer 1] of BNP Australia. One of the stated functions of this organization is to help Bangladeshis in Australia to obtain visas. This is highlighted by his evidence that he has issued over one hundred letters of support for Bangladeshi asylum seekers between 2016 and 2018 during his tenure as [Office Bearer 1]. He is therefore not an independent witness and has a vested interest in the outcome of this case. Secondly, his evidence is that there are one hundred and one members in the Executive Committee in BNP Australia. This is consistent with the applicant’s evidence that every active member is given a position and title. The applicant’s positions and titles as [Position 3] of BNP Australia or, alternatively, [Position 5] of BNP Australia and [Position 4] of [Branch 1] of BNP Australia are therefore meaningless.
Thirdly, the Tribunal is of the view that [Leader D’s] explanation for why his statement dated 9 September 2018 had the same formatting and contained identical paragraphs to the statement made by [Leader C] is unconvincing and reflects badly on his credibility. If [Leader D] has issued over one hundred letters of support to Bangladeshi asylum seekers it would not be unusual to use a template which contains generic information about the organization and country information and then to insert personal information about the particular individual for whom the letter was being written. This could partially explain why his statement and [Leader C’s] statement had identical paragraphs.
However, [Leader D] denied using a template. Even if most BNP activists had similar cases and similar information as he claims, this does not explain why the formatting and most of the sentences are identical in both documents. [Leader C’s] statement is dated 10 September 2018 and it is possible that he obtained a copy of [Leader D’s] statement and plagiarised it. However, [Leader D] did not offer this as a possible explanation and [Leader C] did not attend the hearing so the Tribunal was unable to seek clarification from him.
Fourthly, even if most BNP activists have similar cases and similar information as [Leader D] claims, this does not explain why both he and [Leader C] claim to have had identical personal experiences when they returned to Bangladesh in 2015 and 2018 respectively. The Tribunal finds it implausible that AL supporters tried to assault both of them because of their involvement in the BNP when they returned to Bangladesh, that they both had a contact in the Police Force who helped them to escape political persecution in Bangladesh and that they both departed early. This raises doubts about the reliability of the evidence given by both of them.
Fifthly, [Leader D’s] reference to the applicant’s family being returned to Bangladesh is not consistent with the applicant’s evidence that he has no family in Australia. This raises doubts as to his knowledge of the applicant’s current circumstances notwithstanding his statement that he sees the applicant almost every week. Sixthly, the Tribunal finds it implausible that a Sub Inspector in Dhaka would provide information over the telephone to a third party in Australia about the applicant’s criminal cases in Bangladesh. Seventhly, the Tribunal has a number of concerns in relation to the statements made by [Mr B] and [Leader E] and their credibility and reliability as witnesses. These concerns are referred to in paragraphs 64, 65 and 72 above. The Tribunal places no weight on the information they have provided [Leader D] in relation to the applicant. In view of the above, the Tribunal finds that [Leader D] is not a reliable or credible witness and places no weight on his evidence.
Eighteenth, the applicant’s migration agent has provided the Tribunal with four news articles in relation to the protests against Sheikh Hasina during her visit to Australia in April 2018 which he submitted were published online. He submitted that the articles were in [specified news sites]. He submitted that this would make the applicant a target if he returns to Bangladesh. The documents provided to the Tribunal have been translated into English in Bangladesh.
During the first hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant why he was sending documents from Australia to Bangladesh to be translated into English instead of getting NAATI qualified translators in Australia to translate the documents. He responded that he did not know that he could get them translated into English in Australia. When the Tribunal pointed out to him that he had a migration agent who could have told him where to get them translated into English, he responded that he “did not think that way”. The Tribunal informed him that if he wished the Tribunal to consider documents that had been translated into English they needed to be translated by NAATI qualified translators in Australia (so that the Tribunal could be satisfied as to the accuracy of the translations). The Tribunal gave him a considerable amount of time to have the documents translated in Australia and re-submitted to the Tribunal. Despite this, the Tribunal has not been provided with English translations by NAATI qualified translators of these four articles.
The four articles provided to the Tribunal do not have web addresses despite them allegedly being published online. The Tribunal is therefore unable to access these documents online or to be satisfied that they have been published online. The article allegedly published in the [specified website], a community newspaper published in Australia, refers to the organizers of the protests being from “different political parties and social organizations”. It names thirty one of the organizers including ‘[variation of applicant’s name]’. The article allegedly published in [another website] names sixty one of “the leaders of the BNP and Australian community” who attended the protest but does not include the applicant’s name or any name similar to his name. It contains a very dark photograph of some of the protestors and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to identify anyone from this photograph.
The article allegedly published in [a website] names forty five of the “leaders of different political parties and social organizations” who attended the protests including ‘[variation of applicant’s name]’. The article allegedly published in [a named website] names twenty eight of the “leaders of different political parties and social organizations” who attended the protests but does not name the applicant. It contains a photograph of some of the protestors that is so blurred that it would be impossible to identify anyone.
Even if the Tribunal were to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accept that these articles were published online, only two of them refer to a person named ‘[variation of applicant’s name]’. His Bangladeshi passport indicates that his name is ‘[name]’, he has used this name in all documents filed with the Department and the Tribunal and he has given oral evidence to the Tribunal that that is his name. It is therefore unlikely that he will be identified by the name ‘‘[variation of applicant’s name]’. In the event that an online search is undertaken for his name ‘[name]’, the Tribunal notes that there are in excess of 1,500 accounts in the name of ‘[applicant’s name]’ in [social media].
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Bangladeshi authorities have the capacity or the interest to identify the applicant as a result of any online profile he may have.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the provisions of s.5J(6) of the Act and its concerns in relation to his motivation for joining BNP Australia. He responded that he did not join BNP Australia for the purpose of strengthening his claims for protection. He stated that he has supported the BNP since he was young and has a liking for it. He stated that he is a genuine BNP worker and it has nothing to do with his claims for protection. He requested that the Tribunal conduct an investigation before making a decision.
The Tribunal has had regard to the oral and written submissions made by the applicant’s migration agent. The Tribunal has had regard to the country information provided by the applicant to the Department and to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has had regard to the Tribunal's Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility and Guidelines on Vulnerable Persons when assessing the applicant's credibility. The Tribunal has also had regard to the DFAT Country Information Report on Bangladesh and the Department's Policy Guidelines to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Findings
Having considered all the applicant's claims, all the evidence and the submissions, the Tribunal finds that he is not a witness of truth. The Tribunal is of the view that he was prepared to say or do anything to obtain a Protection visa without any regard for the truth. The Tribunal finds that he manufactured his material claims in relation to his circumstances in Bangladesh and fabricated or embellished some of his claims in relation to his BNP related activities in Australia for the purpose of obtaining a Protection visa.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was born on [date] at Lakshmipur in Bangladesh. The Tribunal accepts that he attended College between [specified years] and University between January 2004 and March 2007. The Tribunal accepts that he completed a [named] degree in March 2007. The Tribunal accepts that he worked in [Country 1] for 12 months and thereafter worked in Bangladesh. The Tribunal accepts that his last job was [in a managerial position] in [a specified] business and that he worked there until January 2016. The Tribunal accepts that he lived at the same address in Dhaka from [specified year] to January 2016 when he left for Australia.
The Tribunal accepts that he was married [in] April 2012 and has no children of his marriage. The Tribunal accepts that his parents [and specified family members] live in Bangladesh. The Tribunal accepts that he has travelled to [Country 1] and [Country 3] for the purpose of tourism and has travelled to [Country 2] for the purpose of shopping. The Tribunal accepts that he first travelled to Australia between [March] 2015 and [April] 2015 for the purpose of attending [a specified event]
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was involved in student politics when he attended College and University and that he supported the BNP. The Tribunal accepts that he may have continued to be a BNP supporter after he left University and that he may have voted for the BNP at elections. The Tribunal does not accept that he held any official position in the BNP after he left University and started working. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the documents he has provided in relation to official positions he has held in the BNP in Bangladesh are reliable or accurate documents. The Tribunal places no weight on these documents.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was targeted from 2008. The Tribunal does not accept that in 2009 he was falsely implicated in a case and charged with ‘collecting illegal donations’. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from this.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was arrested several times while protesting after the 2014 election. The Tribunal does not accept that he was ever arrested by the Police. The Tribunal does not accept that he was beaten by the Police and, as a result, has scars on his body. The Tribunal does not accept that he was brutally attacked by the Police in 2015 and is lucky to be alive. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from this.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal does not find the supporting letters from [Mr B] and [Leader E] to be reliable and places no weight on them. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds that [Leader D] is not a reliable or credible witness and places little weight on his oral and written evidence.
The Tribunal does not accept that there are many criminal law cases against the applicant and that the Police are looking for him to arrest him. Alternatively, the Tribunal does not accept that there are two criminal law cases pending against him in relation to [Offence 1] and [Offence 2] and that there are outstanding warrants for his arrest. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from this. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the documents that he has provided from Bangladesh in relation to the two Court cases against him or documents that refer to those cases are authentic documents and places no weight on these documents.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is of adverse interest to the Bangladeshi authorities or AL leaders, members or supporters for reason of his political activities in Bangladesh.
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant is at risk of serious harm or significant harm because of his involvement with BNP Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied that his involvement with BNP Australia is not solely for the purpose of strengthening his claims to be a refugee. The Tribunal is of the view that it also provides him with the opportunity to have social interaction with his fellow countrymen and to obtain support from other Bangladeshi expatriates in Australia.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a member of one of the three BNP Australia organizations and a member of [Branch 1] of one of these organizations. The evidence before the Tribunal in relation to what positions he was appointed to and when he was appointed to the position is inconsistent. However, the Tribunal is prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that he has been given a position and title in each of these organizations. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal finds these positions and titles to be meaningless.

The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has attended various functions organized by BNP Australia such as celebrations for significant anniversaries. The Tribunal accepts that he attended protests in [City 2] [in] February 2018 against the imprisonment of Begum Khaleda Zia and that the protests took place [at specified locations]. The Tribunal accepts that he attended a seminar organised by the [Agency 1] on 22 April 2018.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant attended a protest [near location 2] in [City 1] [in] April 2018 against Sheikh Hasina who was attending [a meeting] in [that city]. The Tribunal does not accept that he gave speeches at the protest. The Tribunal accepts that the protesters did not see Sheikh Hasina as she entered or exited the hotel through a different entrance. The Tribunal accepts that there was another protest against Sheikh Hasina [at a location] [in] April 2018 which the applicant did not attend. The Tribunal accepts that there was some media coverage of these protests in the Australian media and in the media in Bangladesh. The Tribunal accepts that some of this media coverage may be available online.
The Tribunal does not accept that, as a result of the media coverage of the protest that the applicant participated in on [a date in] April 2018, he became the target of AL leaders and activists from all over the world. The Tribunal does not accept that, because of his involvement with [Branch 1] of one of the three BNP Australia organizations, he attracted the attention of the BNP leadership and the hatred of AL activists. The Tribunal does not accept that he was targeted by AL supporters and their associates because of posts on his [social media] account.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Bangladesh government has the capacity or the interest to monitor the activities of its citizens living overseas including monitoring their activities on social media. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is of adverse interest to the Bangladesh authorities because of his activities associated with BNP Australia and his activities on social media.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s activities in Australia are such that he has acquired a high profile in the BNP in Bangladesh let alone to be of adverse interest to the Bangladeshi authorities and AL leaders, members and supporters in Bangladesh.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is of adverse interest to the Bangladeshi authorities or AL leaders, members or supporters. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he is at risk of serious harm or significant harm for any of the reasons claimed from any of the persons or organizations claimed if he returns to Bangladesh now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the refugee criterion?
Having considered all of the applicant's claims, individually and cumulatively, all the evidence and submissions and in view of the findings above, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm for reason of his actual or imputed political opinion or any other reason set out in s.5J(1)(a) of the Act if he returns to Bangladesh now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that he does not have a well-founded fear of persecution and is not a refugee as defined in s.5H of the Act. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the complementary protection criterion?
As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered whether he may nevertheless meet the criterion for the grant of a Protection visa pursuant to the complementary protection criterion.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant's claims under complementary protection. In view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm for any of the reasons claimed if he returns to Bangladesh now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Having considered all of the applicant's claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence and submissions the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will be arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out on him, he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment if he returns to Bangladesh now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that 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 as defined in s.36(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not satisfy the criteria in s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act and who holds a Protection visa. Accordingly, he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
Linda Symons
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 3743

7 February 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Statutory Construction