1702034 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by individuals from Bangladesh. The applicants claimed they feared persecution due to the applicant one's membership and activities within the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), alleging threats, attacks, and inclusion on a hit list by members of the ruling Awami League (AL). The dispute before the Tribunal was whether there was a real chance the applicants would suffer serious harm if returned to Bangladesh, either on the grounds of political opinion or membership of a particular social group, or alternatively, whether there was a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, which relates to refugee status, or under section 36(2)(aa), which concerns complementary protection. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicants' claims, considering the evidence presented, and evaluating relevant country information. The Tribunal also had to consider the potential for harm based on political opinion and whether the applicants constituted a particular social group, such as returnees perceived to be wealthy.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the applicants' claims regarding their involvement with the BNP and the alleged persecution by the AL. However, the Tribunal found inconsistencies in the applicants' evidence, including a short visit to a third country followed by a voluntary return for business purposes, and a delay in applying for protection. The Tribunal also noted that the applicants had joined an Australian branch of the BNP only after their visa refusal and that there was limited evidence of their past activity, profile, and the extent of attacks or knowledge of current political events. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants did not satisfy the refugee criterion under s 36(2)(a) or the complementary protection criterion under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

As a result, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicants were unable to satisfy the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.