1711895 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, claiming he feared harm in Bangladesh due to his political opinion as a member of the Bangladesh National Party (BNP) and its affiliated youth wings. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically the 'refugee' criterion or the 'complementary protection' criterion. The matter was before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations under the Refugees Convention, based on a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion. Alternatively, the Tribunal had to consider if there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Bangladesh, under the complementary protection criterion.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding his political involvement and claimed injuries to be inconsistent and lacking credibility. It noted the applicant's vague and evasive answers about his role in the BNP and his lack of knowledge about its political alliances and electoral performance. The Tribunal also found the applicant's account of injuries sustained in a politically motivated attack to be inconsistent with medical documentation, which it deemed not genuine. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied with the identity or credibility of a witness claiming to be the applicant's sibling, due to significant discrepancies in the information provided. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was an ordinary supporter of the BNP and had not come to the adverse attention of ruling party activists or authorities, and therefore did not face a real risk of serious harm upon return to Bangladesh due to his political opinion. The Tribunal also found no real risk of significant harm under the complementary protection criterion, including a personal conflict with an individual from university, as the dispute was historical and there was no evidence of ongoing threats.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.