1710335 (Refugee)

1710335 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 1745 (29 March 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1710335
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Bangladesh
MEMBER:Roslyn Smidt
DATE:29 March 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Statement made on 29 March 2018 at 5:46pm
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Bangladesh – Religion – Hindu – Political opinion – Jatiya Party member – Social group – Prominent landowners – Credibility issues
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, 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 and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who is a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for the visa [in] February 2013 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] July 2013.
The applicant applied for review of the delegate’s decision on 12 August 2013. On 17 December 2014 a differently constituted Tribunal affirmed that decision. That decision was remitted by the Federal Circuit Court because the Tribunal had failed to consider whether the applicant was at risk of harm in Bangladesh because of generalised violence. The matter is now before the Tribunal pursuant to an order of the Court.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 7 February 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 RELEVANT LAW
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, the applicant 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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
BACKGROUND AND MIGRATION HISTORY
The applicant states that he is a [age]-year-old divorced man from Bangladesh. According to the passport used by the applicant to enter Australia in 2010 and a passport issued to him in Australia [in] 2017 his name is [name] and his date of birth is [date]. The applicant states that these details are incorrect and his real name is [a different name] and his date of birth is [a different date].
The applicant states that he left Bangladesh in about 2007 after which he resided in [Country 1] for about year before moving to [Country 2] where he married and appears to have sought asylum. The outcome of this application is unclear. He arrived in Australia [in] December 2012 on visitor visa issued in [Country 2] and applied for protection [in] February 2013.
At the hearing the applicant confirmed that his father was deceased and his mother and his brother [Mr A] brother reside in Australia. He stated that he had [a number of siblings], but three of his brothers are deceased. One died in Australia, the others in Bangladesh. One of his sisters died in Bangladesh in 2016. [One] sister resides in [Country 1].
The applicant’s brother [Mr B] arrived in Australia in February 1992 and was granted protection in 1995. He was [died] in Australia in 1996.
The applicant’s brother [Mr A] also resided in [Country 3] for some time and arrived in Australia [in] February 1996. He applied for protection, but his claims were found to lack credibility by both the delegate and the (differently constituted) Tribunal and his application was refused. He remained in Australia and was later granted permanent residence as a result of his marriage to an Australian citizen. His first wife later passed away and he has since remarried.
The applicant’s [mother]arrived in Australia in April 2001 accompanied by [Ms C], who claimed to be the widow of [Mr B]. [Ms C] applied unsuccessfully for protection and subsequently returned to Bangladesh in 2002. The differently constituted Tribunal which considered her case did not accept that she was [Mr B]’s widow. [His mother] was granted refugee status by a differently constituted Tribunal on the grounds of her religion and her background as a member of a family of locally prominent Hindu landowners.
On 7 August 2017 the Tribunal received a letter outlining a number of allegations regarding the applicant and other members of his family. Some of the allegations are plainly incorrect. Others are impossible to verify or irrelevant to his case.
At the hearing I advised the applicant that a letter had been received which contained some allegations against him and his family in relation to their visa applications. I advised him that it did not contain any information which I found relevant to his case and I would not give it any weight.
SUMMARY OF THE APPLICANT’S CLAIMS
The applicant claims that he fears serious or significant harm if he returns to Bangladesh for reasons of religion, political opinion and his family’s background as prominent landowners. He claims that land belonging to his family has been taken by Muslim groups or individuals linked to the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), that members of his family have been killed, kidnapped, raped and displaced because of these problems. He claims that he was targeted and attacked by people from the same group because of his family background, his religion and his membership of the Jatiya Party (JP). He claims that he was denied a passport in 2001 or 2003 and that when he visited Bangladesh in 2016 members of the same group who were pursuing him prior to his departure, sought to kill him but killed his brother-in-law instead.
At the beginning of the hearing on 7 February 2018 I advised the applicant that I understood that he feared persecution in Bangladesh because of his Hindu religion, his involvement with the JP and his background as a member of a prominent landowning family. He confirmed that this was correct. When asked, he said that he did not fear harm for any other reason or because of the general situation in Bangladesh.
THE APPLICANT’S CLAIMS AND FINDINGS OF FACT
In a written statement provided with his initial application for protection the applicant stated that he left Bangladesh after relocating to numerous towns to escape ongoing violence and persecution, and constant hunting down because he and his brothers were members of a Hindu minority and he was a member of the JP. He claimed his family had a lot of land and a Muslim neighbour who belonged to the BNP and JI wanted the land. He claimed that he and his brothers were violently attacked on a number of occasions, citing in particular the kidnapping of his brother [Mr A] by local criminals in 1989, the disappearance of his brother [Mr D] in 1997 and a violent assault by a Muslim neighbour from the BNP and JI party in 1999 which resulted in the death of his brother [Mr E] in 1992. He also claimed that his family home was burnt down during riots in 1992.
The applicant also claimed that he had been a member of the JP from 2000 to 2005 and that he had been attacked on four occasions: in 2004 when he was injured by a bomb while attending a party meeting and hospitalised for a month; in November 2006 when he was attacked on a bus and hospitalised for a week; in January 2007 when he was assaulted by men armed with bamboo sticks and then in March 2007 when the men who had attempted to kill him in 2004 located him and beat him with a hammer, after which he was again hospitalised for a month. He relocated to an area near the border and left for [Country 1] in January 2008.
The applicant’s claims were discussed and elaborated during an interview with a delegate of the Minister and the previous Tribunal. The previous Tribunal found a number of inconsistencies in the evidence and other family members had provided. Many of these were set out in a s424a letter dated 22 August 2014 to which the applicant responded to on 15 September 2014.
At the hearing I reviewed the applicant’s claims and sought to clarify some issues. I then noted that the previous Tribunal had found a number of his claims lacking in credibility and advised him that after reviewing the relevant evidence I shared a number of the previous Tribunal’s concerns. I reminded him of some of the issues raised by the previous Tribunal and asked him to comment. The following summary does not always follow the order in which these matters were addressed at the hearing.
Loss and destruction of family land and property
The applicant and other family members have consistently claimed that land belonging to their family was taken and property destroyed by Muslims. In his submissions to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department), the applicant spoke about the destruction of the family’s home in 1992, but made no specific mention of land being stolen. A submission to the previous Tribunal dated 15 October 2014 prepared by [Mr A]’s late wife, stated that the family still owned property worth about [amount] in Bangladesh but they were unable to access it because it was under the control of violent Muslim gangs. In later submissions to the previous Tribunal the applicant indicated that family land or property had been lost in 1988, 1989 and 1992.
At the hearing in February 2018 I advised the applicant that I was somewhat confused about when his family had lost their land and property. He said that his grandfather had been a landlord and he understood that his family first lost land some of their land in 1989 (when he was about [age] years old), but he had no personal recollection of this event. He said that he had been told he had gone to live with a relative in [Country 1] at that time, but he could not remember. He said that his family also lost land in 1992 and 1999.
The applicant said that in 1992 (when he was about [age] years old) he was living on family farm land with his mother, his sisters and his brothers [Mr D] and [Mr E], when a group of Muslims took the land and later had the land registered in their names at the title office. Following this incident he went to [Country 1] with his mother and some of his siblings. They returned to Bangladesh between six months and a year later and went to live with an uncle who lived near Dhaka. He said his uncle’s place was located near his family’s land. Later in the hearing the applicant said that the land belonged to his father. I observed that this appeared to be at odds with his earlier evidence which indicated that the land belonged to his uncle. He said that his father owned the land. I pointed out that his father had died in 1989 and asked who had the title of the land when he lived there. He said that his father’s name was on the title of the land, but it was taken by force by Muslims in 1999 at which time his uncle went to live in [Country 1]. He said that the Muslims who took the land obtained title under the enemy legislation, but also said that they were able to obtain a lease for the land because no taxes had been paid for many years so his father’s name was removed from the title.
I asked the applicant if his family had ever tried to get any of their land back. He said that [Mr A] told him that he went to talk to the police and Chairman of the Union before leaving Bangladesh, but they did not help. ([Mr A] appears to have left Bangladesh in about 1994). He said that his family also contacted a lawyer, but that was not helpful.
I noted that according to the applicant’s evidence all of his family land had been taken by 1999 and asked why in those circumstances the people involved would continue to pursue him if he returned to Bangladesh. He said that they feared that his family might try to reclaim their land and they would want to prevent this.
I reminded the applicant that the previous Tribunal had noted that he and other family members had given inconsistent evidence regarding the timing and circumstances in which property belonging to his family was destroyed or had been taken by Muslims. At the hearing of the previous Tribunal he said the land was taken in 1992, but also indicated that some land was taken when he was [age] or [age] years old (1995 or 1996), both of which were at odds with earlier evidence provided by [Mr A] who claimed that the family home was destroyed and family members attacked in 1998, and evidence from his sister-in-law, [Ms C], which suggested that the applicant’s house had been burned down in 1988. In response to a letter sent by the previous Tribunal setting out some of these conflicting accounts, the applicant said that his house had been burned down during communal rioting and rebuilt in 1988, 1989 and finally in 1992.
The applicant said that the last time his family land was taken was in 1999, but he could not recall the earlier dates accurately. I asked why he had not mentioned that land had been taken in 1999 when he responded to the previous Tribunal’s 424a letter. He said that his sister-in-law had helped him to write his response and she must have made mistakes. With regard to [Mr A]’s evidence regarding his family’s problems in 1998, he said that his family home had not been destroyed that year, but one of his sisters had been sexually assaulted. He said that this occurred on his sister’s wedding day and he and his family were living with his uncle at that time.
I reminded the applicant that the previous Tribunal found the evidence which he and [Mr A] had given differing accounts of [Mr A]’s visits to the land lost by his family when he went to Bangladesh in 2013. At the hearing of the previous Tribunal the applicant stated that [Mr A] had visited the land at midnight and observed that a mosque, houses and shops had been built there. However, in his evidence [Mr A] said that he went to see the land but there was nothing left, just some crops and a pond. When asked to comment on this apparent discrepancy the applicant said that there were two pieces of land, one with crops, the other with a house and a shop.
After considering all of the relevant evidence, I am not satisfied that the applicant has provided an honest or accurate account of when and why land and property belonging to his family was taken or destroyed. In the first place, as pointed out by the previous Tribunal, he and other family members have provided differing accounts of these events. Secondly, I found the applicant’s evidence regarding these events confused and unpersuasive. While I acknowledge that some of these occurred many years ago when the applicant was young, being forced to leave one’s home due to violent attack is an extremely significant event and I would expect that the applicant would have some recall of being displaced in 1989 when he was about [age] years old. Third, and more significantly, I believe that he would not have failed to tell the previous Tribunal that the last land owned by his family had been taken in 1999 when he was about [age] years old, if this had occurred as indicated in his initial statement and also claimed at the February 2018 hearing. In reaching this conclusion I have noted his claim that his sister in law prepared his response to the previous Tribunal’s 424a letter and must have made mistakes, but I do not accept this explanation. And in any event, if the last of his family land was taken in 1999 I believe that he would have stated this clearly when giving evidence to the previous Tribunal.
In addition, this is not the only problem with the applicant’s evidence regarding his family land. As noted above, he changed his evidence regarding the current state of the family land allegedly visited by [Mr A] in 2013, first claiming that there was now a mosque and some shops on the land, but when advised that this was at odds with [Mr A]’s account, then claiming that he was referring to a different piece of land. I do not accept this explanation and find the applicant’s willingness to modify his evidence in this way a further indication that he is not a credible witness.
Harm suffered by members of the applicant’s family
The applicant and other family members have claimed at different times that his father died as an indirect result of harm inflicted by Muslims, that his brother [Mr A] was kidnapped in 1989, that his brothers [Mr D] and [Mr E] were killed by Muslims in 1997 and 1999 respectively, that his mother and one of his sisters were raped, that one of his sisters was assaulted with acid and that his sister-in-law was kidnapped when she returned to Bangladesh in 2002.
At the February 2018 hearing I noted that according to earlier submissions the applicant’s father died in 1989. The applicant said that he understood this was correct, but he had no memory of his father and could not recall the details of his death. I reminded him that he and other family members had given differing accounts of when and how his father had died. As pointed out in the previous Tribunal’s decision these claims included that he died of a [medical condition] in 1989, and that he was beaten to death in 1988 or 1989, and that he died after [Mr B]’s body was returned to Bangladesh in 1996. I noted that the applicant had not mentioned his father’s death in his first written submission to the Department, and had, when asked by the previous Tribunal to comment on the differing accounts, which he and other family members had provided, said that his father had been tortured and beaten by Muslim gangs and eventually died of a [medical condition]. In response the applicant said that some of the evidence provided before the February 2018 hearing was wrong, in particularly the evidence that his father died in 1996. He added that he was very young in 1989, and could not recall, and had been repeating what other family members had told him.

Given the serious inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the applicant and other family members regarding the death of his father I am not satisfied the applicant or any member of his family has provided truthful or credible evidence about when and how his father died. Furthermore, while it is plausible that the applicant does not recall or was not aware of the precise date or circumstances of his death, as he was only [age] or [age] years old at the time, I have some difficulty accepting that he has no recollection at all of his father or his death particularly if he died as a result of violence. Rather than state this simply and clearly when asked about his father’s death, and the differing accounts provided by members of his family to the previous Tribunal, he continued to insist that he had died in 1989 of a [medical condition] following attacks by Muslims.
At hearing in February 2018 the applicant confirmed that his brother [Mr A] was kidnapped in 1989. He said that he did not know how long [Mr A] was held before being released. I reminded him that the previous Tribunal had noted a number of inconsistencies in the evidence which his family provided regarding [Mr A]’s alleged kidnapping. For example, [Mr B] had not mentioned that [Mr A] had been kidnapped when he applied for protection in 1998 and [Mr B]’s widow, [Ms C], had stated in 1999 that she had lived in the same house as [Mr A] between 1988 and 1990 but could not recall him facing any problems. His response to the previous Tribunal’s invitation to comment on these inconsistencies was [Ms C] might have misunderstood the question she was asked. When asked for comment during the February 2018 hearing he said that [Ms C] had not been living with [Mr A] during that period and maintained that [Mr A] had been kidnapped.
As noted by the previous Tribunal, the applicant and his family have given significantly differing accounts of the circumstances surrounding [Mr A]’s alleged kidnapping in 1989, and I am not satisfied that the Tribunal has been given a truthful or credible account of this alleged event. I also note that the applicant has provided differing reasons why his sister-in-law had stated that she had been living with [Mr A] in 1989, but was not aware that he had been kidnapped, suggesting to the previous Tribunal that she might have misunderstood the question, but claiming at the hearing in February 2018 she was not living with [Mr A] in 1989. If this were true, I believe the applicant would have included this information in his response to the previous request for clarification on this issue. However, he failed to do so and I find that he has changed his evidence to compensate for earlier problems with his case, and find this to be further evidence that he is not credible witness.
The applicant confirmed that his brother [Mr D] was kidnapped by extremists in 1997 (when he about [age] years old and [Mr D] was about [age]) and his body had never been found. I asked how he knew that [Mr D] had been kidnapped if he had simply disappeared. He insisted that his brother had been kidnapped by a neighbour who was involved with the BNP and JI, but failed to explain how he knew this to be the case. Even if I accept that [Mr D] disappeared in suspicious circumstances in 1997, the claim that he was kidnapped by the applicant’s neighbour is mere speculation unsupported by any evidence.
During the February 2018 hearing I advised the applicant that according to the previous Tribunal’s decision his brother [Mr A] had provided evidence that their mother and one of their sisters had been raped and their family home destroyed in 1998. He responded that his family home had not been destroyed in 1998, but confirmed that his sister had been raped that year. In fact, when reviewing the evidence following the hearing, I realised that the former Tribunal’s decision contained a typographical error and [Mr A] had in fact claimed that the family home was destroyed and his mother and sister assaulted in 1988.
Later in the hearing I reminded the applicant that previous the Tribunal found his evidence regarding harm faced by his sisters inconsistent and lacking in credibility. At the previous Tribunal hearing he stated that his sister, [Ms F], had been raped, but said he did not think anything else had happened to her or to his sister [Ms G], which was at odds with [Mr A]’s evidence that acid had been thrown on one of their sisters on her wedding day. When asked to comment on this apparent discrepancy during the previous Tribunal hearing he said that he could not remember a lot of things since he was hit with a hammer. In his response to the Tribunal’s invitation to respond in writing, he stated that his sister did have acid thrown at her on her wedding day. I noted that earlier in the current hearing the applicant stated that one of his sisters had been raped but failed to mention any other attack. He said that his sister [Ms F] had been raped in 1998 on [Ms G]’s wedding day and that on the same day someone threw acid at [Ms G]. He said that the groom had run away and [Ms G] later married someone else.
I find the applicant’s evidence regarding the harm inflicted on his sisters was inconsistent, unconvincing and completely lacking in credibility. As pointed out by the previous Tribunal it is not plausible that he would have failed to recall that both of his sisters had been victims of serious assaults when the matter was first discussed at the hearing. And his evidence at the February 2018 hearing was confused and unconvincing. He initially stated that one of his sisters was raped on her wedding day in 1998, but failed to mention that his other sister was attacked with acid on the same day until I reminded him of his evidence to the previous Tribunal later in the hearing. Furthermore, he initially stated that one of his sisters was raped on her wedding day, but later changed his evidence and said that his sister [Ms F] had been raped on his sister [Ms G]’s wedding day. I do not accept that the applicant’s sisters were assaulted by Muslims or his family’s enemies in 1998 or at any other time. I find that he repeated false evidence provided by [Mr A] to bolster his claims for protection and changed his evidence when he was alerted to the fact that it was at odds with his earlier claims. In reaching this conclusion I have taken account of the fact that I mistakenly suggested that [Mr A] had claimed that one of his sisters was raped in 1998 when in fact he had claimed that this occurred in 1988. However, I find the applicant’s failure to correct me a further indication that he has not provided honest evidence regarding the harm suffered by his sisters.
The applicant’s evidence regarding the harm experienced by his mother was also confused and unconvincing. As set out in the previous Tribunal’s decision, he claimed that she was beaten or locked up in 1992, but stated that he was not living with her at that time. This is at odds with the evidence provided in the February 2018 hearing when he said that he had been living with his mother in 1992 when the family was forced off their land and fled temporarily to [Country 1]. I do not accept that the applicant has provided a truthful or a credible account of the problems faced by his mother prior to her departure from Bangladesh in about 1999.
In his submissions to the previous Tribunal the applicant claimed that his sister-in-law was kidnapped immediately after she arrived in Bangladesh on return from Australia. At the hearing in February 2018 I reminded the applicant that the previous Tribunal had also noted that the evidence the applicant and [Mr A] gave regarding what happened to his sister-in-law, [Ms C], after she returned Bangladesh was inconsistent as the applicant had said that she was kidnapped on her way back from the airport and had not been heard from since while [Mr A] had initially stated that she went straight to [Country 1], but later said that she had been kidnapped but later went to [Country 1]. In response to the Tribunal’s request for clarification the applicant said that said that she had been kidnapped when she returned from Australia and the family had later learned that she was living in [Country 1]. In response the applicant said that his sister-in-law had been kidnapped on her way home from the airport, but he did not know anything about what happened after that.
In light of these inconsistencies and my findings regarding the applicant’s general credibility, I am not satisfied that the applicant’s sister-in-law was kidnapped when she returned to Bangladesh.
Given the findings set out above and the numerous problems with the applicant’s evidence set out below, in particular his willingness to concoct claims in support of his application, I am not satisfied than any member of his family was assaulted or killed in Bangladesh as part of an ongoing campaign by a particular group of Muslims or anyone else.
The applicant’s movements and places of residence in Bangladesh
The applicant has given a number of different accounts about where and with whom he lived following 1989. At the Departmental interview he stated that he did not leave Bangladesh until 2007. In submissions to the previous Tribunal he stated that he was in hiding from 1992 until about 2004, that at some time during that period he spent a year in [Country 1], that between 1992 and 2000 he was moving around in the border area and sometimes stayed with an uncle, and that he was forced to relocate in about 1995. He also claimed that he lived at [a certain location] from 2004 until his departure from Bangladesh in 2007.
At the February 2018 hearing the applicant said that he had been told that he had been sent to live with a relative in [Country 1] in 1989, but he had no personal recollection of this. In 1992 he was living on family land which was also taken by Muslims. After being forced off this land he stopped going to school and went to [Country 1] with his mother, his sisters and two of his brothers. They returned to Bangladesh between six months and a year later and went to live with an uncle near Dhaka. He initially claimed that he had lived mostly with his uncle until about 2004, but later claimed that the land on which he was living was taken in 1999 and his uncle, mother and sisters fled to [Country 1] at that time. When I pointed out that he appeared to be providing inconsistent information he said that he might have misunderstood my earlier question.
I noted that the applicant had told the previous Tribunal that he had been forced to stop studying and relocate when he was about [age] or [age] (in about 1995 or 1996) because Muslim people took his family land, which was at odds with his evidence during the current hearing. The applicant said he could not recall exact dates.
The applicant said that after the last of his family land was taken in 1999 he stayed with a friend for a few months, after which he moved around until 2004.
The applicant said that after 1999 he sometimes went to live with his sisters in [Country 1]. When asked for more information about the time he spent in [Country 1] his response was very confused. He initially said that he had gone to [Country 1] once or twice between 1999 and his departure from Bangladesh in 2007, but then said that he lived there twice, once for about a year and once for about 18 months; then said he had visited [Country 1] four times during the period in question. When I noted that he had given differing accounts of his visits to [Country 1] he said he could not remember, but then added that he had been twice and stayed for several months on each occasion. He said that he had gone to [Country 1] in 2004 after being injured in a bomb blast (see below), but also said that he had only gone to [Country 1] twice between 1999 and 2001 and not visited again until he left in 2007. When asked to clarify he said when he spoke about leaving [Country 1] after the bomb blast in 2004, he was referring to his departure in 2007.
I noted that the previous Tribunal had found the applicant’s evidence regarding his movements before 2007 inconsistent and at odds with evidence from other family members. I noted in particular that he had told the previous Tribunal that [Mr A] had given evidence that the applicant had lived mostly in [Country 1] after 1992, and that when asked to clarify his whereabouts said that he had been to [Country 1] many times for less than a week, but he forgot to tell the delegate. I noted that this was at odds with the account he had given me which suggested he had visited [Country 1] between two and four times between 1992 and 2007 but lived mostly in Bangladesh. The applicant said that he had been in [Country 1] in 1992 and had visited three times after that, but [Mr A] believed he had been mostly in [Country 1] because he had not told [Mr A] or other family members when he returned to Bangladesh. I noted that this explanation was at odds with the explanation he had provided to the previous Tribunal regarding the inconsistencies in his evidence. He maintained that he was telling the truth.
In light of the many serious inconsistencies in the evidence given by the applicant regarding his whereabouts between 1992 and his departure from Bangladesh in 2007, I am not satisfied that he has given an honest or accurate account of his whereabouts during these years. I acknowledge that the applicant was only about [age] years old in 1992 and that it is not uncommon for applicants to be confused about the precise dates or details of past events, and would not have been concerned about minor discrepancies regarding his whereabouts during these years. However, I do not accept that the significant problems with his evidence are the result of confusion about past events. I note, for example, that he changed his evidence during the February 2018 hearing, initially stating that he lived with his uncle from about 1993 until 2004, but later stating that his family was violently displaced from this location in 1999, after which his uncle went to live in [Country 1]. He sought to explain this discrepancy by claiming that he had misunderstood the earlier question. I do not accept this explanation. He was asked a straightforward question and when asked confirmed his response. I also note that he gave conflicting explanations of the inconsistency between his evidence and the evidence given by [Mr A] regarding when he lived in [Country 1], claiming to the first Tribunal that he had visited [Country 1] frequently for brief periods, a claim not repeated in February 2018, when he claimed for the first time that his brother had believed he was in [Country 1], when in fact he was mostly in Bangladesh, but had not told his family that he had returned home.
After considering all the relevant evidence, I believe that the applicant knowingly provided false information regarding his whereabouts following 1992 in order to create the impression that he was in constant or frequent danger and bolster his claim for protection.
Membership of the JP
The applicant has consistently claimed that he was a member of the JP in Bangladesh and that he was targeted by members of opposition parties because of this.
During the first hearing of the previous Tribunal he displayed limited knowledge of the JP policies, but during the second hearing he spoke in some detail about the party’s policies. He said that his family supported the Awami League but they did nothing to help him or his family so he joined that JP. He said that while in the party he had been involved in activities aimed at helping Hindus regain land and he had helped a girl who was raped.
At the hearing in February 2018 he again stated that he joined the JP because the Awami League would not help him. He said that he did not know much about the policies of the JP, but he liked General Ershad because he did not do politics like other people.
I asked the applicant if the JP had ever helped him or his family. He said that they could not help because they were not in power, but they had visited him when he was in hospital after he was injured in a bomb blast. He said that the JP had recommended that he leave Bangladesh and told him that they would call him when they were in power so he could return. He said that he had a video which he wanted to show me, because the delegate had stated he would not be at risk of harm if he returned to Bangladesh because the JP supported the Awami League. I advised him that it was my understanding that the JP had been in coalition with the Awami League at that time of the delegate’s decision, but I was aware that these alliances changed frequently in Bangladesh and did not propose to watch the video.
The applicant confirmed that he was first attacked because of his involvement in the JP in 2004 when he was the victim of a bomb blast. I asked when he was next attacked. He said in 2007 when he was injured in a bomb blast and hospitalised for about a month. I advised him that it was my understanding that the bomb blast had occurred in 2004. He said that this was correct. I asked him to clarify what happened in 2007. He said that he was beaten on a bus after attending a meeting with a JP leader. After this he was treated at hospital as an outpatient. About a month later he was with a few friends near a monument when five or six people armed with bamboo sticks came towards them with the intention of attacking them, but they ran away without being harmed. After that he fled to a district a three or four hour drive away. About two or three months later he was talking to a friend in a field when some men approached them. They told the applicant that they had been looking for him and beat him on the head with a hammer knocking him to the ground. It took about a month for him to recover from this attack, after which he left for [Country 1].
I noted that while this account was broadly consistent with his initial application, it was at odds with the written statement provided in December 2013 which made no mention of the attack by people with bamboo poles in 2007. He said that his late sister-in-law had assisted him with this statement and she must have made a mistake.
I advised the applicant that it was my understanding he had been the press secretary in a branch of the JP in Dhaka, and noted that he had previously stated that he had had limited involvement with the JP after the 2004 bomb blast because party members had not helped him and he was disillusioned with the group. He said that after the 2004 bomb blast people from the JP had visited him, but they did not do much to help him so he was upset. However, he later realised that everyone in the party was facing problems because they were in opposition, so they could not do much.
I observed that while Hindus belonged to most of the different parties in Bangladesh, it was my understanding the JP members were predominantly Muslims, and observed that it appeared that he must have had Muslim friends. He said that he had had some Muslim friends before 2004, but after the bomb blast he did not have Muslim friends. He said that he had continued to work for JP and added that there were many Hindus in his branch of the party because he had recruited them. I noted that he had never mentioned this before. He said that he had forgotten to mention many things.
I advised the applicant that I was aware that political violence sometimes occurred in Bangladesh. I noted that according to DFAT this violence occurred mostly during times of particular unrest such as during elections or strikes. However, I advised him that I was not aware of any evidence which suggested that low level political activists, such as he claimed to be, were targeted and pursued in the manner he had claimed. I also advised him that even if I accept his claims at face value, it appeared unlikely that he would be of adverse interest to anyone in Bangladesh because of his involvement in politics if he returned to his homeland now. The applicant maintained that his political enemies were still interested in him and said that this was demonstrated by the murder of his brother-in-law in 2016 (see also below).

The applicant also stated that Bangladesh people thought that Hindus usually joined the Awami League, and that was why the Awami League and BNP where upset with him. I noted that this appeared to be the first time he had made this claim. He maintained that his claims were true and said that the Awami League wanted to harm him because he was taking votes away from them. Later in the hearing he also claimed that he had helped a Hindu girl who was raped, and her rapist had been jailed, and he feared this man might harm him if he returned to Bangladesh.
I reminded the applicant that the previous Tribunal had found much of his evidence regarding his participation in the JP and the problems he faced as a result inconsistent or implausible. For example, the previous Tribunal found it difficult to reconcile his claim that he was in hiding from 1992 until 2004 with the claim that he was politically active after 2000. It also noted that he had claimed that he had largely ceased political activities after the 2004 bomb blast but also claimed that he continued to work for the party until 2007, and had provided unconvincing evidence regarding his continuing activities. It found the claim that he was the target of a 2004 bomb attack unconvincing as the bomb was thrown into a building where a number of party members were meeting, and he was unable to provide a plausible explanation for his belief that he was the target of the attack. It also found the claim that he supported the JP did not sit well with his evidence that the JP was seeking to implement Sharia law in Bangladesh. I advised the applicant that I shared the previous Tribunal’s concerns.
The applicant maintained that his claims regarding the JP were true. He said that he knew he was the target of the 2004 bomb blast because he asked someone outside the building and they told him that this was the case. When asked how that person knew the applicant was the intended victim of the attack he said that when he was released after a month in hospital he asked someone and they told him that he was the target. After some discussion it was established that the applicant knew the person who told him this, but could not recall his name, and the man knew that the applicant was the target because he was a local person and the attackers were also local people.
I do not accept that the applicant was a member or supporter of the JP from about 2000 until he left Bangladesh in 2007.
In the first place, I find the claim that he joined the party, despite believing that it intended to institute Sharia law if it came to power implausible, particularly given the problems he claims to have experienced as a result of sectarian violence and discrimination.
Secondly, and more significantly, his evidence regarding his commitment to the party and his activities as a member was confused, unconvincing and sometimes inconsistent. For example, he first told the previous Tribunal that he virtually stopped supporting the party in about 2004 when he was injured in a bomb blast, but later claimed he continued to work for the party and hold the position of press secretary until 2007. When asked why he continued to support the JP after 2004 he said that he did not know and that he was afraid they would harm him if he left, but also claimed that he still supported the party. During the hearing in February 2018, he said that the party assisted him after the bomb blast in 2004 and had visited him when he was in hospital. When I pointed out that this appeared to be at odds with the evidence that he largely ceased activities in 2004 because they did not help him after he was injured, he said that they had not helped him much which upset him at the time, but he later realised that there was not much they could do.
Thirdly, the applicant claimed for the first time at the February 2018 hearing that he was also at risk of harm from the Awami League because he had recruited a significant number of Hindus to his branch of the JP. I do not accept this claim. If the applicant was at risk of harm from the Awami League because of he was actively recruiting Hindus to the JP, I believe that he would had mentioned this problem prior to the February 2018 hearing.
Thirdly, even if I ignore the problems set out above, I find the applicant’s evidence regarding the problems he faced as a member of the JP lacking in credibility. I acknowledge that violence has long been a feature of politics in Bangladesh and it is plausible that JP members could be attacked while attending or travelling to and from meetings. However, no credible evidence has been provided which suggests that the applicant was the intended target of the 2004 bomb blast and, as noted by the previous Tribunal’s decision, his description of the attack while travelling on a bus was confused and unconvincing. Furthermore, I find the claim that members of opposing parties would have pursued a relatively low level JP member such as the applicant claims to have been to a location several hours drive away, several months after the left the area, far-fetched and implausible.
After considering all of the relevant evidence I do not accept that the applicant was a member of the JP. It follows that I do not accept that his work for the party included helping Hindus regain land or obtain justice when sexually assaulted, or that he was attacked or pursued by members of opposing political parties for any reason.
In reaching this conclusion I have considered the letter from the JP dated 23 May 2013 which states that the applicant was the press secretary of the Dhaka Metropolitan Branch of the party from 2001 until 2007, and claims that attempts were made on his life in 2004 and 2006, forcing him to flee the country in mid-2007. However, this letter repeats claims which I have found to lack credibility, and as noted by the previous Tribunal, forged or fraudulently obtained documents are readily available in Bangladesh.[1] I have given this letter no weight.
[1] see Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, ‘Bangladesh: reports of fraudulent documents’, 20 September 2010, BGD103532.E; Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, ‘Bangladesh: Prevalence of fraudulent, forged or fake documents and genuine documents obtained by fraudulent means ...’, 8 August 2005, BGD100388.E; UK Home Office, Country of Origin Information Report - Bangladesh, 11 August 2009, paragraph 35.02; Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) cable DA19732, dated 26 July 1988, CX2690.
I have also considered the medical evidence provided by the applicant. However, I am not satisfied that any of it overcomes the concerns referred to above. The letter from [a doctor] dated [September] 2013, confirms that the applicant received burn injuries to his hand at some time in the past, but not how or when these injuries were sustained. While it appears that the applicant sought medical assistance for headaches, no medical evidence has been provided which confirms that the applicant received an injury to his head at any time in the past. In light of the evidence regarding the ease with which fraudulent documents can be obtained in Bangladesh, my findings on the applicant’s claims regarding his political activities and the curious wording of the document that states the applicant was injured in a bomb blast which occurred from [in] 2004, but was now fit for work, I have given no weight to the medical certificate from [a] General Hospital dated [June] 2013.
Denial of passport
The applicant claimed that he been denied a passport when he first applied in about 2001, because the son of the man who had taken his family land worked at the passport office and had intervened to ensure he did not get one. He said that the man who took their land was a Member of Parliament and he was also the leader of the group which was responsible for the death of his brother. He also claimed that his application had been denied because the police refused to provide him with the necessary clearance. I observed that this appeared to suggest that the problem was with the police, not the passport office. He said that the son of the MP had worked at the passport office and the passport office had instructed the police not to provide the necessary clearance. I asked how the applicant knew that his passport application had been refused because of the influence of the MP and his family. He said that this was his assumption as there was no other explanation for the refusal. Later in the hearing he claimed for the first time that the police had lodged false murder charges against him in 2003, and claimed that this was the reason he was denied a passport (see also below).
I do not accept that the applicant was denied a passport in 2001 or 2003 because of the influence of enemies of his family or because the police had lodged false murder charges against him in 2003. In the first place, as discussed above, I do not accept false charges were laid against him in 2003. Secondly, as discussed above, I found his evidence regarding the ongoing problems he and his family faced from a gang or association of Muslims led by powerful men implausible and lacking in credibility. There is no credible evidence before me which suggests that anyone in Bangladesh would have sought to deny the applicant a passport for any reason connected with his claim for protection and I do not accept this claim.
False charges
At the hearing in February 2018 I reminded the applicant of the email provided to the previous Tribunal in August 2014 which states that the police had lodged a false murder case against him and were asking about him in the market place. I noted that he had initially told the previous Tribunal that he did not know why the police had lodged these charges, but later said that they had lodged the case against him 2003 and that was why he could not get a passport. I noted that he had said nothing about these charges prior to the hearing of the previous Tribunal. He said that he had forgotten. I advised him that I found it difficult to understand why the police would still be actively looking for him in 2014. He said that anyone can lodge a false case in Bangladesh and added that he could no longer contact the author of the email and thought he was in hiding.
I do not accept that the police or anyone else laid false murder charges against the applicant in 2003 or in 2014 or that the police were inquiring about him in 2014. If false murder charges had been laid against the applicant in 2003 I believe he would have mentioned this prior to the second hearing of the previous Tribunal. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence before me which suggests that the police or anyone else in Bangladesh would have had any interest in lodging false murder charges against the applicant in 2003 or 2014, or that the police or anyone else would have had an adverse interest in him for any reason which would cause them to inquire about him in 2014, some seven years after he left Bangladesh. I find that the applicant concocted these claims to strengthen his application of protection in Australia.
It may be that the applicant’s friend sent him an email in August 2014 alleging that false charges had been lodged against him in Bangladesh. However, as pointed out by the previous Tribunal, this does not mean that the contents of that email are accurate, as a person’s friends will often be willing to do many things, including providing fabricated evidence to support a friend. As noted above, I find the claims contained in the email lack credibility and I have given no weight to the email.
Murder of the applicant’s brother in law in 2016
When asked at the end of the February 2018 hearing if he wanted to add anything the applicant said that he had gone to visit his sister [Ms F] in [Country 1] in 2016. At that time his sister [Ms G] was living in Bangladesh and extremely [ill], so he went to Bangladesh to visit her. She lived in Chittagong in an area a long way from his home. [In] June 2016 he was travelling from a shop to his sister’s house with her husband who was an Ayurvedic doctor, when three or four people in a car approached them. His brother-in-law told him to run away which he did, but his brother-in-law was killed. I asked the applicant how he knew that he was the target of the attack. He indicated that there was no other reason why his brother-in-law would have been killed. I asked the applicant if he knew how he had been located by his enemies while visiting in 2016. He said that he did not know. His sister died in Bangladesh the following year.
In support of this claim the applicant provided an article [which] reports that a Hindu Ayurvedic doctor had been hacked to death by unknown Islamic terrorists. There is no mention of the applicant in the article, which states that the doctor who was killed had opposed radical Islamists in Bangladesh. When asked, that applicant said that he was unable to provide any evidence that the man who was killed was his brother-in-law. I observed that in the absence of any corroborating evidence I had difficulty accepting that article referred to his brother-in-law. He maintained he was telling the truth.
I do not accept that anyone attempted to kill the applicant when he returned to Bangladesh in 2016. Even if I accept that the applicant’s family lost land and experienced other serious problems prior to 1999 and that he was involved with the JP, I find the claim that his political opponents or enemies of his family would be aware that he had returned to Bangladesh after at nine year absence, and would have made an attempt on his life, far-fetched and completely implausible, particularly as Chittagong is a great distance from his place of origin. I am unaware of any evidence which suggests that members of the BNP or JI or any other political party in Bangladesh would have any interest in harming someone who had been involved with the JP in a relatively low level manner nine years earlier. Nor is there any credible evidence before me which suggests that the people who took his family land would attempt to kill him some 15 years after they took the land because they were afraid that he might attempt to regain the land they took. There is no suggestion that the applicant or anyone else in his family was engaged in action to reclaim the land in 2016 and DFAT advises that most Hindus are unsuccessful in their attempts to regain their land, which suggests that such drastic measures against the family would have been unnecessary.
I find that he concocted this claim to support his application for protection. In reaching this conclusion I have considered the newspaper article which he provided. However, there is nothing in the article which confirms his claims that the man who was killed was his brother-in-law or that he (the applicant) was the intended victim. The article suggests that the man was killed because he was a Hindu who opposed Muslim extremists. I believe that the applicant acquired a newspaper article regarding a murder which had no relation to him or his family to support his claim for protection in Australia.
The applicant’s enemies
During the hearing I noted that the applicant had spoken in general terms about problems faced by Hindus and about losing family land, but all of the problems he had mentioned after 1999 related to politics. He said that many Hindus had lost land after going to [Country 1], and even Hindus who remained in Bangladesh sometimes lost land due to violence. I advised him that I accepted some Hindus had lost land, but my concern was that all his problems after 1999 appeared to be related to his claimed membership of the JP. He said that everything was linked and claimed that he was attacked because of his religion, his political involvement and because his family land had been taken.
I noted that the applicant appeared to be suggesting that all of the problems dating back to the kidnapping of his brother in 1989 were caused by the same group of Muslim people. He confirmed that this was correct. I advised him that I found it somewhat unlikely that he and his family would have been pursued and attacked by the same group of people in different places over such a long period of time. He said that the attacks were all linked and the leader was a man called Shamim Osman, who was a well-known terrorist and worked with others including the former neighbour who had caused him problems. He said that Osman knew him personally and had arranged for people to track him down. He said that Osman’s brother had been in the JP and Osman had been in the JP, the Awami League and the BNP. I asked why this man had arranged for his brother to be killed. His response was confused. I asked how he knew that his problems were part of an ongoing campaign against him and his family. He responded by asking who else it could be.
During a break in the hearing I looked online for information regarding Shamim Osman. According to Wikipedia Shamim Osman is an Awami League politician from a well-known political family. After losing an election in 2001 he went to Canada where he remained until 2009. After the break I asked the applicant when he had met Shamim Osman. He said that he met him in about 2002, but had not seen him after 2004. I advised him that according to information I had located Shamin Osman had been in Canada from 2001 until 2009. He said that he did not know. Later he added that he was referring to another person called Shamim Osman, who was also in the Awami League, was the cousin of Shamim Osman the MP. I observed that this appeared to be somewhat unlikely.
I found the applicant’s claim that he and his family were targeted and pursued by a gang or group of Muslims led or directed by his Muslim neighbour, and/or serving or retired members of Parliament far-fetched and implausible. No plausible explanation has been provided as to why such a disparate group would be so fixated on harming him and his family that they would continue to pursue them from about 1989 until 2016. And even if I accept that the applicant comes from a prominent Hindu family, which lost land between 1989 and 1999 and that he was a member of the JP, I am unaware of any evidence which suggests that prominent political figures or anyone else in Bangladesh would have an adverse interest in him if he returned to his homeland now.
I do not accept that the applicant knows Shamim Osman or that Shamim Osman has any interest in harming him. He made no mention of Mr Osman prior to the February 2018 hearing and has not provided any evidence or explanation for Mr Osman’s ongoing interest in his family. Furthermore, as pointed out at the hearing Mr Osman was not in Bangladesh between 2002 and 2004 when the applicant claims to have had contact with him. And I do not accept the applicant’s evidence that he had been referring to another Shamim Osman with a similar background. If this had been the case I believe he would have stated this clearly when I pointed out that Mr Osman was not in Bangladesh during the time he claimed to have known him.
I do not accept that the applicant and his family were targeted by a gang or group of Muslims led by Shamim Osman or anyone else. I find this to be another example of the applicant concocting claims to support his application.
Evidence from the applicant’s sister in law
At the beginning of the hearing the applicant said that he wanted me to take evidence from his sister-in-law, who is the second wife of his brother [Mr A] and had arrived relatively recently from Bangladesh. When asked what evidence she would provide, the applicant indicated that it was up to me. I established that the applicant’s sister-in-law had not known the applicant while he was in Bangladesh and had no first-hand knowledge of the problems faced by his family in the past. I advised the applicant that I had no questions for his sister-in-law but would be happy to take evidence from her if he thought she had something relevant to say. At the end of the hearing the applicant said that he no longer wanted his sister-in-law to give evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT: CONCLUSIONS

Having considered all of the evidence, I accept that the applicant is of Hindu religion. For the purposes of this decision I accept that he resided mostly in Bangladesh until 2007 when he left for [Country 1] before moving on to [Country 2] where he applied for protection. However, I found his evidence regarding his reasons for leaving Bangladesh and seeking protection in Australia to be lacking in credibility.
As set out above, there are many inconsistencies in his evidence and some of his evidence is at odds with evidence provided by other family members. In addition, as also set out above, some of his claims are far-fetched and implausible. While some of the problems discussed above are relatively minor and some could perhaps be due to the fact some of the applicant’s claims relate to events which happened many years ago when he was very young, others are more significant. Overall the pattern of his evidence and his willingness to concoct claims leads me to conclude that he is not a truthful or a credible witness.
On the evidence currently before me I am not satisfied that land belonging to his family was taken or destroyed by Muslims in 1989, 1992 and 1999, or that any member of his family was kidnapped, killed, raped or displaced by violence prior to his departure from Bangladesh, or that he was a member of the JP, or that he was attacked by members of other political parties or by members of a Muslim gang or group led by his former neighbour or prominent Muslim politicians or anyone else, because of his family background, his Hindu religion or his membership of the JP, or for any other reason, or that he was denied a passport in 2001 or 2003, or that false charges were laid against him by the police or anyone else in 2001 or 2003, or that the police were looking for him in 2014, or that his brother-in-law was murdered in 2016 by members of the group or gang who wished to harm him (the applicant).
I note that the previous Tribunal accepted that the applicant’s brother, [Mr E], was killed in 1999. It appears that the Tribunal reached this conclusion as the applicant and other family members had provided consistent evidence regarding his death and the applicant had provided a copy of a newspaper article and photograph relating to his death. The newspaper article is an invitation to a prayer session in Australia in 2003 to commemorate [Mr E]’s death in 1999 and the photograph is a photocopy with no commentary, neither of which in my view provides persuasive evidence that this claim is true. In any event, even if this claim is accepted, the evidence provided by the applicant and other family members indicates that his death occurred during an outbreak of violence nearly 20 years ago. As discussed above, I do not accept that the applicant or his family have been the targets of ongoing attempts to harm them since about 1989, and there is no credible evidence before me which suggests that there is a real chance that the applicant will be killed on return to Bangladesh (see also discussion on the situation for Hindus below).
In considering the applicant’s claims I have noted that his brother [Mr B] and his mother were both granted protection in Australia. A copy of the applicant’s mother’s Tribunal decision was provided to the Department. However, she arrived in Australia in 2001, over 10 years before the applicant and while some of their claims are the same, they are not identical. Furthermore, there is significantly more information before me that was presented in her case. There is nothing in the decision in her case which persuades me that the applicant is also entitled to protection in Australia.
A copy of the decision in [Mr B]’s case has not been provided. However, I note that he arrived in Australia over 25 years ago and appears to have resided in [Country 3] for at least a year prior to that time. It appears that he left Bangladesh before many of the problems the applicant claims to have faced occurred and there is no evidence which suggests that the fact that he was granted protection in 1995 has any relevance to the applicant’s case.
I have noted that the applicant applied for protection in [Country 2]. However, no evidence has been provided which suggests that his claim was successful, and this application has no relevance to his application for protection in Australia.
Finally, I have noted the applicant’s claim that he has had difficulty recalling events in the past due to head injuries he suffered in 2007. However, no medical evidence has been provided which suggests that the applicant is suffering from head injuries and I do not accept that this ability to provide evidence was hampered by any such injuries.
Family Background
The applicant claims that he faces a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh because he comes from a prominent landowning Hindu family. While it may be that his family was prominent, wealthy and perhaps owned land at some time in the past, there is no credible evidence before me which suggests that he himself suffered serious or significant harm or that he was of adverse interest to anyone prior to his departure from Bangladesh because of his family background, and I am not satisfied that he faces a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm because of his family background if he returns to Bangladesh now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Political opinion

100. The applicant claims that he faces a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh because of his membership of the JP. As discussed above, I am not satisfied that the applicant was a member of the JP. There is no suggestion he had been involved in any other political parties or groups or political activities of any kind. I am therefore not satisfied that there is a real chance that he will suffer serious or significant harm if he returns to Bangladesh because of his political opinion.
Hindu religion
101. In February 2018 DFAT provided the following advice on the situation of Hindus in Bangladesh:
Estimates of the numbers of Hindus in Bangladesh vary: while the 2011 census put their numbers at 12.5 million, some current estimates place the Hindu population as high as 15.5 million. All sources agree that the Hindu community is Bangladesh’s largest religious minority group…
No legal or other restrictions prevent Hindus from freely practising their faith, or from participating in broader society. Hindus have made a significant contribution to Bangladeshi public life, including in politics, government, academia, business, and the arts. While they have traditionally supported the AL and other left-leaning parties such as the Communist Party, all major political parties have fielded Hindu candidates. While the current AL Cabinet has Hindu members, the overall level of Hindu political representation remains low and Hindu community groups have campaigned for reserved seats in parliament. Similar to other religious minorities, Hindus are not well represented in the security forces.
Like other minorities, the Hindu community is disproportionately affected by historical and continuing land appropriation….The Vested Properties Return (Amendment) Act (2011) allowed Hindus to apply for the return of, or compensation for, property seized under the [Enemy Property] 1965 Act. …. In June 2016, an NGO representing organisations with claims for property returns alleged that government officials tasked with reviewing claims had denied them even when required documentation was in order. In other cases, officials had classified properties as governmental and therefore not eligible for return. The NGO reported that 70 per cent of all claims remained unresolved four years after the enactment of the 2011 Act.
In the lead-up to and following the 2014 elections, JI activists launched a wave of attacks against the Hindu community, killing more than two dozen, destroying hundreds of homes and businesses, and displacing thousands. DFAT understands that the primary motivation for the anti-Hindu violence, which was most prevalent in the northwest, was resentment over the testimony of Hindu witnesses in International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) proceedings (see International Crimes Tribunal (ICT)). In the aftermath of the violence, the High Court ruled that law enforcement agencies had ‘seriously failed’ to protect members of vulnerable groups, including Hindus. The government responded by providing assistance to victims and helping communities restore religious and private property damaged in the violence.
As noted in Security Situation, Islamist militant groups, including some claiming links with the Islamic State terrorist organisation, conducted a number of small-scale localised attacks against minority religious and social groups across the country between January 2013 and mid-2016. These attacks killed or seriously injured several Hindus. Police were despatched to protect temples and clergy in response to the attacks and to death threats made by militants. Bangladeshi authorities subsequently conducted extensive counter-terrorism operations. DFAT assesses that these operations have reduced the capability of militant groups but have not eliminated the risk of further attacks.
In October 2016, at least 100 Muslims violently attacked a Hindu village in Brahmanbaria district in east-central Bangladesh. Although police reinforcements and paramilitary border guards were despatched to the area, the attack left dozens injured, and at least 15 Hindu temples and over 200 Hindu homes badly damaged and looted. Smaller attacks against Hindus in the area also occurred. Initial media reports suggested Islamists had incited the violence by alleging a young Hindu had posted on Facebook an edited photograph of a Hindu deity seated atop the Kaaba in Mecca. A subsequent government investigation found the Facebook photograph had been faked, most likely as a means to incite the violence. An NCHR investigation concluded that the incident was a pre-planned effort aimed at appropriating Hindu land. More than 1000 people connected to the incident and the smaller attacks were arrested and/or charged, including a local police officer, while the AL suspended three local leaders from the party for their involvement.
DFAT assesses that Hindus with historical land claims face a moderate risk of official discrimination because they are unlikely to be able to reclaim their property or obtain compensation despite a legal pathway enabling them to do so. Hindus face a moderate risk of societal discrimination in the form of physical violence, particularly around periods of heightened political tensions such as national elections, and may face a risk of sporadic attacks from Islamist militants.

102. At the hearing I advised the applicant that I was aware of continuing outbreaks of communal violence and attacks on Hindus, however, in my view, advice from DFAT suggested that the violence was so widespread or frequent that Hindus in general faced a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm as a result. I observed that there appeared to be no suggestion that he had experienced problems following 1999 because of his religion (as discussed above, I am not satisfied that he faced problems because of his religion prior to 1999 either) and noted that he appeared to have returned voluntarily to Bangladesh in 2016, which raised questions about the genuineness of his fears. The applicant disagreed with this assessment but made no further comment.
103. There is no credible evidence before me which suggests that the applicant suffered serious or significant harm or that he was of adverse interest to anyone prior to his departure from Bangladesh because of his religion. While there appears to have been an increase in sectarian and terrorist violence since the applicant’s departure in 2007, as noted above there are between 12 and 15 million Hindus in Bangladesh and, in my view, the evidence does not suggest that outbreaks of sectarian or terrorist violence are so widespread or frequent that Hindus generally face a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm in Bangladesh today merely because they are Hindus. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided which suggests that the applicant comes from an area which is particularly prone to sectarian violence or that he faces a greater risk than others of experiencing sectarian or terrorist violence because of his Hindu religion if he returns to Bangladesh.
104. After considering all of the relevant evidence I am not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of being a victim of violence or any other form of serious or significant harm because of his Hindu religion if he returns to Bangladesh.
105. In reaching this conclusion I have considered the newspaper articles and reports on the situation in Bangladesh provided by the applicant. At the hearing in February 2018 he confirmed that none of these articles contained information which was specific to him, his family or his local area and advised that they had been provided to show the general situation. These articles provide specific examples of sectarian and political violence occurring in Bangladesh. However, they contain nothing which alters my conclusion that the applicant does not face a real chance of experiencing such harm. I have also noted the applicant’s late sister-in-law’s evidence that she witnessed riots, highway hold-ups and car burnings while visiting Bangladesh in 2013.
Generalised violence
106. During the hearing I asked the applicant if there was anything in the general situation in Bangladesh that might cause him problems if he returned. He said that he did not fear harm for any reason apart from politics and religion. Nevertheless, I have considered whether anything in the current situation in Bangladesh means that the applicant would face a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh for any reason.
107. According to DFAT, the security situation in Bangladesh is volatile and can deteriorate quickly. Security threats include politically-motivated violence, particularly ahead of national elections and terrorist attacks committed by Islamist extremist groups and criminal violence. In particular they note that successive Bangladeshi governments have faced the challenge of dealing with extremist Islamist groups, who have frequently resorted to terrorist violence against a wide range targets including religious minorities. According to DFAT these attacks have generally been small scale in nature and authorities have taken a hard-line approach in response including proscribing key militant groups and arresting hundreds of militants. International and domestic rights groups have reported that security operations against militant groups have resulted in high numbers of extra-judicial killings. DFAT assesses that these operations have reduced the capability of militant groups but have not eliminated the risk of further attacks.
108. Bangladesh clearly faces security problems. However, in my view, the evidence does not suggest that the situation is such that ordinary Bangladeshis such as the applicant face a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm as a result of the general situation. Furthermore, I acknowledge that religious minorities are one of the groups which may be at risk of harm from extremist groups. As noted above, DFAT advice, which takes account of the overall security situation, does not suggest that these problems are such that Hindus generally face a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm in Bangladesh.
109. After considering all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant will face serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh because of generalised violence.
110. In reaching this conclusion I have noted the applicant’s late sister-in-law’s evidence that she witnessed riots, highway hold ups and car burnings when she visited Dhaka in March 2013. I accept that she may have witnessed and outbreak of violence during her visit, but this does not alter my findings regarding the general situation or the risk that this poses to the applicant.
CONCLUSIONS
111. After considering the applicant’s claims singly and cumulatively, I am not satisfied that he faces a real chance of suffering serious harm amounting to persecution for any of the reasons in the Convention if he returns to Bangladesh now or within the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore I am not satisfied that he has a well-founded fear of persecution.
112. The applicant’s claims for complementary protection are the same as those put forward in relation to his claims against the Convention. After considering all of these claims both individually and cumulatively I am not satisfied that he faces a real risk of experiencing significant harm if he returns to Bangladesh. Therefore, I am not satisfied 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.
113. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
114. Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
115. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criteria in s.36(2).
DECISION
116. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Roslyn Smidt
Member

[2018] AATA 1745

29 March 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction