1704152 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Bangladesh, sought a protection visa, claiming he faced harassment, persecution, and vandalism of temples due to his identity as a Buddhist monk in a Muslim-majority country. The Minister's delegate refused the application, a decision the applicant sought to have reviewed by the Tribunal. The dispute centred on whether the applicant would face a real chance of suffering serious harm if returned to Bangladesh, either under the refugee convention or complementary protection provisions.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether there was a real chance he would suffer serious harm due to his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Alternatively, the Tribunal had to consider if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Bangladesh, he would face a real risk of significant harm. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims against available country information regarding the treatment of religious minorities in Bangladesh.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of daily harassment, threats, and vandalism by Muslim mobs, and the broader country information concerning religious tensions, particularly in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. While acknowledging that religious minorities, including Buddhists, reside in Bangladesh and that the Constitution guarantees equal rights and prohibits discrimination, the Tribunal also noted that disputes, often over land ownership, could have religious overtones but were not always primarily caused by religion. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence, including his extended periods residing outside Bangladesh without seeking protection and his not currently living as a monk in Australia. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a real chance of suffering serious harm or a real risk of significant harm upon return.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the applicant's protection visa application was refused.