1707372 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by a Bangladeshi national against a delegate's decision to refuse his application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution by the Awami League government due to his political opinion as a supporter of the BNP, asserting that BNP activists face harm from Awami League supporters with state complicity and that there is no safe place for them to relocate within Bangladesh. The applicant provided various documents to support his claims, including a passport with a stated birthdate of 7 September 1975, a statutory declaration claiming an earlier birthdate of [redacted], a birth certificate, a testimonial from his former headmaster, and statements from BNP officials. The delegate had not been satisfied regarding the applicant's claimed date of birth, his claims of travel to escape harassment, or his accounts of past harm due to his political activism.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Bangladesh, as required for a protection visa. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's claims, particularly concerning his political affiliation, alleged past persecution, and the current country conditions in Bangladesh for BNP supporters. The court also had to consider the applicant's failure to attend the hearing, despite attempts to contact him.

The court noted that the "real risk" test for complementary protection under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act imposes the same standard as the "real chance" test for a well-founded fear under the Refugee Convention. The Tribunal considered the Country Information Report for Bangladesh dated 22 August 2019, along with other relevant country information and departmental guidelines. The applicant's extensive evidence, including his detailed account of alleged attacks and threats due to his BNP activities, was reviewed. However, the applicant did not appear at the hearing, and despite attempts to contact him by telephone, he did not respond.

The court made no specific orders in the provided text.