1708603 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Protection visa by an individual who claimed to fear harm in Bangladesh due to his political activities. The applicant asserted he was an office bearer in the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and its youth wing, the Jatiotabadi Jubo Dal (JJD), and had participated in protests and campaigns against the ruling Awami League (AL). He claimed that the AL and the police had sought to arrest him and that his life was in danger if he returned to Bangladesh. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a Protection visa.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically political opinion, or whether he met the criteria for complementary protection. This involved assessing the credibility of his claims regarding his involvement in the BNP and the threats he alleged he faced from the AL and the police. The Tribunal was also required to consider the relevant country information and guidelines, including Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, and the Complementary Protection Guidelines.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence was vague and inconsistent, leading to significant credibility issues. While acknowledging the applicant's stated political affiliations and activities, the Tribunal was not satisfied that these, as presented, established a real risk of significant harm amounting to persecution for a Convention reason. The Tribunal also considered the provisions for complementary protection, which require a substantial ground for believing that a real risk of significant harm exists as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. However, due to the identified credibility issues with the applicant's evidence, the Tribunal concluded that he had not discharged the onus of proof required to satisfy the criteria for either a Convention-based protection claim or complementary protection.

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