1715742 (Refugee)

[2021] AATA 4826

1715742 (Refugee) [2021] AATA 4826 (6 October 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1715742

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Bangladesh

MEMBER:Melissa McAdam

DATE:6 October 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 06 October 2021 at 10:23am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Bangladesh – political opinion – Jatiotabadi Chatra Dal (JCD) – Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) – Bangladesh Awami League – Jubo League – credibility concerns – religion – Hindu – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 28 June 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for the visa on 30 September 2016.

   CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA

3. 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, he or she 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.

4. 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 because the person is a refugee.

5. A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s.5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s.5H(1)(b).

6. Under s.5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a  person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss.5J(2)-(6) and ss.5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

7. 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 the 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 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’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss.36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.

   Mandatory considerations

8. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

   SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   Protection visa application

9. The applicant is a [age] year old man from Bangladesh. The following is a summary of the claims and information he provided in his Protection visa application:

   a.He was born in [year] in Narsingdi, Bangladesh.  He submitted a copy of his Bangladeshi passport issued in Dhaka in 2016. 

   b.He lived in Narsingdi until February 2016 and then went to [City 1] in [Country 1] for two months between March and May 2016 for medical reasons.  From May to September 2016 he lived in Dhaka, Bangladesh. He came to Australia in September 2016 on an Entertainment visa.

   c.He is of Hindu religion. He was born into a moderate Hindu family. 

   d.He is married. His wife, mother and brother are in Bangladesh.

   e.He had sixteen years of education in Bangladesh. He completed his Bachelor degree in [College 1] and a Master [degree] at [College 2]. He obtained a Masters [degree] in Bangladesh and is a businessman.  He was a director of a [specified] business in Bangladesh.

   f.He became a member of Bangladesh Jatiotabadi Chatra Dal (JCD) while in [College 1]. JCD is the student wing of Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). He had always desired to be a significant presence in his local community. The main objectives of the party have been economic development, democratic advancement, and national unity. He believed that through his political involvement he would be able to provide strong opposition to the religious and communal politics.

   g.The place where he lived is a mixed area. Since the four party alliance lead by BNP and Jamat-e-Islami came to power in October 2001 the activities of the militants and fundamentalism have been on the rise. He was actively involved against them and worked very hard for the party and local people.

   h.After 1 October 2001 non-Muslims were being systematically oppressed. His party members were added to the list of the oppressed along with members of the religious and ethnic minorities and secular minded intellectuals.

   i.He decided to leave the BNP and joined the Bangladesh Awami League just before the 2009 general election. He worked very hard for the party during the 2009 election. It won a landslide election victory in 2009. After the election the militants affiliated with BNP and Jamat targeted him because he left BNP and joined the Awami League.

   j.During the elections earlier in January 2014 armed BNP and Jamat attacked his business and attempted to kill the applicant. After 8 days in hospital receiving treatment for injuries he returned home, still in pain and fearful.

   k.There is great tension between Awami League and BNP and many innocent people were killed in bomb blasts and drive by shootings. Houses were bombed and untold atrocities were committed against minorities. There are lots of incidents unknown in the present situation.

   l.He urged his local leader to provide better protection to his community and himself. He came under attack during protests against war crime trials. Militants affiliated with BNP set fire on his home and business after the war crimes tribunal sentenced to death their leader. His wife was sexually harassed and the militants threatened to kill his family members if they went to the police and newspapers.

   m.The applicant was afraid for his life and sceptical of his party's ability to provide security. The Islamists said that Bangladesh would be ruled only by Shariah law. The so called Islamic state claimed responsibility for more than half of killings including hacking to death a Hindu priest.

   n.The applicant went to [Country 1] for a while and when he got back to Bangladesh he was hiding in Dhaka until he left Bangladesh.  He is very worried about his wife in Bangladesh. She is in hiding in a different area but he cannot trust anyone. He is very traumatised about his helpless situation.

   Departmental Interview, 1 February 2016

10. The following is a summary of the claims and information the applicant provided in his Department Interview:

    a.Narsingdi is about 50 kilometres from Dhaka. The applicant ran a [specified] business in Bangladesh.  It was a family business started by the applicant’s father. The applicant’s father is deceased.  He died five years ago. The applicant has one brother and one sister.  The brother works in service in a shop in Narsingdi.  The applicant’s sister is married. The applicant married in 1996. He has no children.

    b.The applicant went to [Country 1] because of political problems oppressing minorities in Bangladesh.

    c.A friend, [Mr A], helped the applicant fill in his Protection visa application.  A relative of the applicant’s wife (her maternal uncle) in [City 1] gave the applicant [Mr A]’s name.  They were having discussions about the applicant going to Australia. The applicant met [Mr A] in Australia.  He is a citizen of Australia.

    d.The applicant came to Australia on an Entertainment visa. He organised this himself. When he was in Dhaka he had contact with a group that was going to do dramas and plays in Australia.  The group said the applicant could go with them.  It was a friend of the applicant’s known brother. He was the applicant’s wife’s eldest sister’s husband, [Mr B].

    e.The applicant learned the information about the drama group going to Australia while he was in [City 1].  The applicant gave copies of his ID and passport to [Mr B] after he returned to Dhaka.  The applicant did not do anything else.  [Mr B] did everything. [Mr B] gave the visa to the applicant.

    f.The applicant is an actor.  He did this outside of his business. He played [in specified roles].  He did this [in specified locations].  He last did a performance in [year].

    g.He applied for a visa to [Country 1] in February 2016.  He went to [Country 1] [in] March and returned [in] May. He travelled by train.

    h.[Mr C] is an Australian citizen.  He called the applicant one week before his departure and told him the visa was ready and to prepare to travel to Australia. The applicant does not know who [Mr C] is.  He had the applicant’s CV.  The applicant does not know what he does in Australia.  The applicant has not met him.

    i.The applicant knows of [Mr D].  He is the director of the drama.  The applicant has worked in one or two plays for him.  The applicant participated in rehearsals for the drama in September. There is [an online] video of the applicant.

    j.The group came to Australia in twos.  The applicant does not know where the man who travelled with him is.  The drama tour was a setup, it was all fake to get visas to Australia.  The applicant provided false information to get a visa because his life was under threat.

    k.The applicant arrived in Australia in September 2016.  He went to live with [Mr A]. The applicant did not intend to return to Bangladesh.  [Mr A] told him about Protection visas and helped him.  The applicant gave [Mr A] his information and [Mr A] made the application.  The applicant signed the application in an office in [Suburb 1].

    l.The applicant told [Mr A] his story and [Mr A] made the statement.  The applicant explained his early life.  He became a member of JCD in 1993 when he entered college.  In 2001 the applicant’s BNP party was in power in coalition with Jamaat.  From 2006 to 2009 the minority oppression began so the applicant joined the Awami Party in 2008.  In the coalition the Jamaat party is religious and opposed to Hindus.  Jamaat is part of BNP.

    m.In around 2014 the applicant’s business was attacked and the applicant was attacked. He was in hospital for 8 days.  It was because the applicant left the BNP and joined the Awami League. There were also some personal things.  In 2014 they wanted to destroy the applicant and attacked his business and him.  They set the applicant’s shop on fire.  All the clothes were burned and the shops were burned.  The applicant was not in the shop. It was locked. The applicant could not reopen the shop as it was all burned out.  They hit the applicant to try to kill him.

    n.The applicant was attacked within a week of his shop being burned.  He was near his home on the road. Four to five people came, some with bamboo sticks and knives. They attacked the applicant and hit him and he ran away and went to hospital.  He was hit on the legs so there is a mark on his legs.  He was in hospital for 8 days because he had cuts and pain all over his body. He did not have an operation but had bandages all over.

    o.After that attack they sexually harassed the applicant’s wife and said if he goes to the police or anyone they would kill the applicant’s whole family.  Some people from BNP and Jamaat came in to the applicant’s house and grabbed his wife then more people came and they assaulted his wife.  They did this in June 2015.  This was after the 2014 election and there were cases against the anti-liberation forces. The applicant is the minority and had to guard his home at night. The applicant is Hindu. They say your country is [Country 1] so you should go back to [Country 1].

    p.They came to the applicant’s house during the night.  The applicant was not at home when they attacked his wife.  There were Hindu families around the applicant’s home but also Muslim ones.  After his wife was threatened nothing happened to the applicant’s family.  They plot only against the applicant because his mother is old and his brother and sister are not that active.

    q.Between June 2015 and March 2016 they threatened the applicant over the phone and asked him for money.  So he stayed in different places because it was difficult to stay in Narsingdi. The applicant’s wife went with him.  His wife is now living in different places in Bangladesh.  She has been threatened and receives phone calls and demands for money. It is normal in Bangladesh to demand money.

    r.The applicant’s wife is now working in a [workplace] as a [Occupation 1]. The applicant does some work in Australia in [Industry 1].  He has to survive. He does not know if he is allowed to work. He gets paid by cheque and cashes the cheque.  The applicant is a labourer.  He works in [Suburb 2]. He has worked there for three months.  He has a card so he can work. He went to an office where he did some tests and paid $10 and he got the card.

    s.He did not bring his wife to Australia because she worked in a [workplace] and he was unsure he could come to Australia and get the visa. She is waiting for the applicant to bring her to Australia. His wife has a passport. The applicant thought of coming to Australia for a long time, for five years.

    t.He joined the Awami League in 2008.  He was known as an active member of the other party so the Jubo league took him in.  The applicant supported the Awami League from a distance because he had his business and was being personally threatened. The threats started from his student life. Initially just small threats but later they became more. They wanted to hurt him physically when Jamaat was very active. This is soon after 2014 when there were anti-liberation forces acting. 

    u.The applicant follows the news in Bangladesh sometimes. He cannot live somewhere else in Bangladesh.  He has no right to live in [Country 1]. If he dies he wants to die in Australia.  He cannot go back to Bangladesh.  His wife has not received major threats. She was called once or twice but she changes her phone sim card.  It is very easy to get someone’s number. His wife does not work in a Hindu [workplace]. There are no Hindu [workplaces] in Bangladesh.

    v.The delegate put to the applicant that he came to Australia for work.  The applicant responded that is not true, he came to Australia to save his life.  The police cannot protect him in Bangladesh.  The Awami League is in power now but Jamaat people are within the Awami League. None of the parties like the minorities. He has told the Awami League about his problems and they have tried to console him.  There are many people in the Awami League leadership and some have a relationship with Jamaat. Most of the people do not like Hindus. 

    w.The applicant cannot specifically name who will harm him when he returns to Bangladesh. Since childhood there have been many people who have hurt him. His main problem is he is Hindu.

    Delegate’s Decision

11. The Delegate had concerns about the credibility of the Applicant's claims and did not accept much of the information in his written application, his statement or his testimony at interview. She found that the applicant was unable to demonstrate or substantiate with personal or authoritative information, the issues central to his claim.  He was invited to provide evidence of his claimed party memberships and religious affiliation but as at the date of the Delegate’s decision no further information or evidence was provided by the applicant in support of his claims.

12. The Delegate accepted that the applicant was from Narsingdi, Bangladesh.  She did not accept that the Applicant had a profile with any political party or organisation; was threatened or harassed by any person or persons for a period of more than 20 years in connection with his political or religious affiliations; or had any particular features to give him any potential added risk of harm.

13. The Delegate was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh, or that he was owed complementary protection.

    Information to the Tribunal

    Tribunal Hearing

14. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 August 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Bengali and English languages. The following is a summary of the information provided by the applicant at the hearing:

    a.The applicant confirmed that all the information in his visa application was correct and that there was nothing he wished to add or change.

    b.He was born in Narsingdi in Bangladesh.  He has not lived anywhere else in Bangladesh. Before he came to Australia he hid in Dhaka.  He arrived in Dhaka from [City 1] in [Country 1] on [date] May.  He stayed in Dhaka for around 5 months, until he came to Australia. In Dhaka he stayed at his wife’s sister’s house in Mirpur. It was a house allocated to her husband by his office. The applicant stayed there with his sister-in-law, her husband and their [number of] children. 

    c.The applicant’s wife was not with him in Dhaka.  She had been with him in [City 1] but was sick and returned to Narsingdi from [City 1]. The applicant returned from [City 1] in May and his wife returned from [City 1] in August. She had some complications with her pregnancy and needed surgery. His wife is not too bad now.  She is living in Narsingdi with the applicant’s elderly mother.  The applicant’s brother lives nearby.  He lives in the same building as the applicant’s wife and mother.  He lives downstairs and they are upstairs.

    d.The applicant used to operate a [specified] business near Narsingdi.  He stopped working in the business about six months before he came to Australia.  He did not do any work in Dhaka or in [City 1].

    e.His wife works as a [Occupation 1].  She [works] at [Workplace 1] in Narsingdi. The [workplace] is closed because of the pandemic but she is [working online]. His wife has only lived at the home where she is now and at her parents’ place.  She has never lived anywhere else.

    f.The Tribunal put to the applicant that he had previously stated that his wife is living in different places in Bangladesh. The applicant responded that now she lives at home but she lived elsewhere when there was an attack.

    g.The applicant’s brother used to have a business but now works in a [store].  The applicant’s sister’s husband probably works in the [specified] sector.

    h.The applicant works in [Industry 1] in Australia.  He does not usually send money to his family in Bangladesh but has during the pandemic.

    i.He cannot return to Bangladesh because he has lots of problems there.  Because he belongs to a minority he was persecuted.  He has had problems in Bangladesh since the 2008 election. This was when the Awami League came into power.

    j.As a student the applicant used to support the BNP’s Chattra Dal.  He would discuss things with other students.  He would tell them that the Chattra Dal upholds rights for students and he would ask them to join.  He also attended meetings.  He could not join the BNP because he was too young. He supported the Chattra Dal and BNP because of late President Zia. The applicant liked President Zia very much.  During his tenure there was no minority persecution.  The applicant supported the Chattra Dal for two years, from 1994 to 1996.

    k.He joined the BNP in 1997/8 and was a BNP activist.  After 2008 he joined the Awami League as a member of the Jubo League. He remained with the Jubo League until he came to Australia.

    l.There were no membership cards or formal processes to join the BNP.  The applicant would attend meetings and gatherings and rallies, just as a participant.  Thousands of people from the applicant’s area were involved in the BNP.

    m.The applicant’s problems started after the 2001 election.  At that time the BNP came into power and aligned with the Jamaat-e Islami.  The JI didn’t like minorities and they conducted some hostility against minorities.  The applicant was not personally affected at the time. However he could see their attitude and he started thinking otherwise of his involvement with BNP.  He continued with the BNP until the 2008 election when he joined the Awami League.

    n.His activities with the Jubo League involved taking part in the election campaigns in 2009 and 2014.  His activities were to talk to people around him and tell them to vote for the Awami League.  He did not have any other activities with the Jubo League.

    o.The applicant’s problems started in the 2014 election.  He did not experience much problem before this.  Minorities suffered but he did not personally experience problems.  He didn’t have any serious problems until the 2014 election.  During the 2014 election campaign an attack on the applicant’s business took place.

    p.In 2014 an attack was carried out on the applicant’s business.  The motive for the attack was to kill the applicant.  He was injured in the attack and spent 8 days in hospital.

    q.The attack happened before the election, on 21 December 2013.  It was a terrible attack and the applicant could have died.  Seven people from the JI attacked the applicant.  The attack was in the afternoon at his business place.  Two of the applicant’s workers were present.

    r.The applicant knew the 7 attackers were from JI because he had seen them previously at a JI rally.  They looked like JI people, they had beards.  They were not from the applicant’s neighbourhood but a little bit away from the applicant’s place.  They hit the applicant with bamboo and iron sticks.  The two workers were fearful and just stayed silent.

    s.The JI attackers told the applicant not to report the attack to the police or they would attack the applicant’s family.  That was all they said.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why the attackers would tell him not to report the attack to the police if their intention was to kill the applicant.  The applicant responded that they were trying to intimidate him, not to kill him.  Their objective was to intimidate him, so they cautioned him.  They told him not to take the matter to the police.  They did not say anything else to the applicant.

    t.The attackers hit the applicant for 20 minutes.  They were not hitting him continuously for this time. Sometimes they yelled at him not to report to the police. Sometimes two of them restrained the applicant.

    u.They attacked the applicant because they were angry with him for joining the Awami League and withdrawing his support for the BNP.  The applicant knows this because after they beat him they asked him why he withdrew his support from the BNP.

    v.After twenty minutes some people rescued the applicant and sent him to hospital.  They didn’t realise the applicant was being attacked until he started yelling.  People want to avoid problems in Bangladesh. The JI attackers saw the people coming in numbers and a crowd forming so they cautioned the applicant and left.

    w.From the attack the applicant had injuries to his hand and leg.  He had some cuts and swelling.  In hospital he was bandaged and given some painkillers.  He has some medical reports at his home in Narsingdi which he can submit to the Tribunal.

    x.The Tribunal asked why the JI would bother with him when he had left the BNP in 2008. The applicant responded it was because they had a longstanding anger against him so carried out an attack on him.

    y.The applicant did not have any problems before the attack on him in December 2013. After the attack he let his local Awami League leader know.  He was the chairman of the local municipality.  He assured the applicant he would look after things but he just gave the applicant some condolences, that was all.

    z.The applicant continued to work after the attack. A few days after the election there was arson at his house and he stopped working.  His house was burned two days after the election.  It was his house but his aunt and her husband lived there.  It was not the applicant’s home.  His aunt and her husband were not home at the time of the arson.  JI activists burned the house. The applicant’s neighbour told him this. They saw who did it at night.

    aa.JI activists burned the house because they knew it was his house and they were angry.  After the house was burned the applicant stopped working at his business. He did not ever start working again. He was able to support himself through his savings.  He spent his time preparing himself to get out of the country.

    bb.The Tribunal asked the applicant why he stopped working at his business because his other house was burned.  He responded that the JI activists burned his business on the same day as they burned the house.  The Tribunal pointed out he had not mentioned this when discussing the arson attack on the house. The applicant responded that he probably missed it. After finishing work at night he went home and they burned his business, which was about 10 kilometres from his home.  He could not do anything. He was mentally broken down.  He did not tell the police because what was done was done.  His business was not insured.  He has some photographs in Bangladesh which he can submit to the Tribunal.

    cc.Nothing else happened after the house was burned. The applicant started working on leaving the country.

    dd.The Tribunal asked the applicant to confirm nothing else happened and he responded that there was a separate incident with the applicant’s wife and she was sexually abused.  This was 3 to 4 months after the 2014 election was held.  They turned up and asked for the applicant but he was not home. They asked the applicant’s wife about him but she didn’t tell them. They wanted to do something barbaric to her but she shouted and other people came to her rescue.  So they left.  His wife was rescued before the men could do anything bad to her.  At the time only the applicant’s elderly mother was also home. It was about 7 pm.  His brother was at the markets.  The applicant was outside, in Narsingdi.  He turned up later.  He was not at home. He was outside home.

    ee.The applicant was in Narsingdi at his maternal uncle’s house.  The applicant’s wife was not injured.

    ff.The Tribunal asked the applicant how the men got in if he and his wife lived on the top floor.  He responded that the gate was not very good and did not lock.  People would often come to the house, even at night.  The Tribunal asked him why he had not made the gate more secure given the serious attacks upon him.  He responded that it was not in his mind that they could come into his house.

    gg.After this nothing else happened. The applicant went to see the Awami League leader again and informed him.  He did not do anything else.

    hh.The applicant went to [City 1] in March 2016.  He mainly went there to get treatment for his wife because they did not have a child. They went there for treatment for her.  He was there for two months and returned to Bangladesh [in] May because he wanted to leave Bangladesh and had received a message there was an opportunity to leave.  He went to Dhaka not Narsingdi because he was scared of being attacked again.  The Tribunal put to him that he had not been attacked since 2014 and he agreed with this.  The Tribunal asked why his wife returned to Narsingdi if he was afraid to.  He responded that her [workplace] was open so she had to go back to her [work] there.

    ii.The Tribunal put to the applicant that he had previously mentioned phone threats and demands for money so he stayed in different places.  He responded that they demanded money from him from June 2015 until he left the country.  He had not mentioned it in the hearing because he was not asked to.

    jj.They started demanding money from him in June 2015 because it is the Bangladesh culture. The poor people or week people are subject to extortion.  He received anonymous calls from people demanding different sums of money. He did not pay any money.  Nothing happened to him.  He informed some people and then they stopped demanding money from him.  They were keeping an eye on him to assess how far he can go.  ‘They’ are the JI and BNP activists.  The Tribunal asked the applicant how he knew this if the calls were anonymous. He responded he could understand from their voices. It was his assumption. He was involved in politics and knew the way they would talk to him.

    kk.His brother and wife are not having problems in Bangladesh.  It was mainly the applicant who was targeted. Since he left they have not experienced any problems.

    ll.If he returns to Bangladesh he can experience harm and an imminent attack. The JI and BNP are hungry because they have been out of power for a long time.

    mm.Hindus in Bangladesh are persecuted. Their numbers are declining.  Bangladesh is a Muslim majority and they do not like Hindus.  It is only because of fear of [Country 1] that Hindus can remain.  The applicant personally experienced problems as a Hindu because he was an easy target for them and was attacked. Other people change parties but they are not attacked.

    nn.The Tribunal put to the applicant that he had been recorded as previously stating that his business was burned before he was attacked and that the attack upon him happened while he was on a road.  The applicant responded that these things happened five years ago and he could have made mistakes.  When he was attacked he tried to run away from his business place.

    oo.The Tribunal put DFAT’s Bangladesh country information to the applicant regarding the low risk to Hindus and relatively uncommon attacks upon Hindus from Islamic extremists.  The applicant responded that Hindus are very often attacked and subjected to violence and broken down.  Attacks happen very often.

    pp.The Tribunal asked the applicant why he had told it at the beginning of the hearing that he had operated his business until six months before he departed to Australia.  He responded that the attack upon him happened immediately after the election.  The Tribunal repeated the question and the applicant responded that he shut down his business before going to [City 1] in March. 

    qq.He shut down the business after it burned but he still operated it because he got some money from clients. By receiving money he effectively kept the business open.

    rr.He lives in Australia in peace and with no threat.  It is very different in Bangladesh. If he has to return to Bangladesh there is no guarantee he can survive there.  He is a poor man and does very hard work here.  He married in 2006.  He has been away from his wife.  He wants to get her here.  He has no one else in the world but his old mother and she does not want to come to Australia.  He has no children and is getting old.  He loves his family very much.

    ss.The applicant agreed to provide any further written evidence or submissions within two weeks.

    Post Hearing Submission

1. On 30 August 2021 the applicant provided the following written material to the Tribunal:

   -    A website address link to [an online] video, entitled “[title]” and dated [in] March 2021, regarding an attack by Hefazat-e-Islam followers in the Naogaon district.

   -    A website address link to [an online] video, entitled “[title]” and dated [in] November 2020, regarding an attack in the Comilla district.

   -    A website address link to [an online] video, entitled “[title]”, dated [in] March 2021, regarding widespread protests organised by Hefazat-e-Islam, against a visit to Bangladesh by the Indian prime minister and attacks on Hindu temples in Eastern Bangladesh.

   -    A website address link to a Face Book news article, dated 18 October 2019, regarding a Hindu woman who was gang raped and killed.

   -    A document with letterhead in the Bengali language and with the English title ‘Discharge Certificate’, dated [in] November 2013, with the details recorded in English that ‘[the applicant’s name]’ whose ‘Husband’s name’ is ‘[Mr E]’ was admitted to the hospital from ‘[date]/11/2013 to [date]/11/2013’ and that ‘She had been suffering from … injury to the knee and whole body’.  Other writing in the Bengali language also appears on the document.  It has two further pages on paper with the insignia “[Hospital 1], est’d 2015”, and titles ‘Operation Notes’ dated ‘[date].11.2013’; ‘Pre-Operative Findings/Special Notes’; and ‘Treatment on Discharge’, and giving details of a procedure on a traumatic knee joint injury. 

   Country Information

2. DFAT’s most recent ‘Country Information Report -Bangladesh’, published in August 2019, contains the following:

   RELIGION - Bangladesh is a majority Muslim country, with Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, and indigenous religious minorities. The CIA World Factbook reports that around 89 per cent of the population is Muslim. … About ten per cent of the population is Hindu. The remaining 1 per cent of the population are from other religions, mostly Buddhism and Christianity…. Religious minorities reside throughout the country in small numbers.

   The Constitution holds that Islam is the state religion but commits the state to ensuring equal status and equal rights for all religion, and specifically mentions Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity. The Constitution also commits the state to upholding secularism by not granting political status in favour of any religion, by prohibiting the abuse of religion for political purposes, and by prohibiting discrimination or persecution of persons protecting any religion. It provides for the right to profess, practise, or propagate all religions ‘subject to law, public order, and morality’, and states religious communities or denominations have the right to establish, maintain and manage their religious institutions. The Constitution stipulates that no one attending any educational institution shall be required to receive instruction in, or participate in
   ceremonies or worship pertaining to, a religion to which they do not belong.
   …
   Hindus - Most Hindus are ethnically and linguistically Bengali, and are not physically distinguishable from the majority Muslim population. Hindus live throughout Bangladesh, including in Dhaka. There are, however, a small number of ‘Hindu belts’ in the south, east and north of the country where Hindus comprise up to 40 per cent of the local population. Some exclusively Hindu villages exist, although most villages are religiously mixed.

   The percentage of Hindus in Bangladesh has fallen considerably over time. There have been two mass emigrations of Hindus from Bangladesh (and East Bengal). At the time of Partition, approximately 2.5 million Hindus left then-East Pakistan for India – the 1951 Census indicated a fall in the Hindu population of 21.4 per cent from the previous Census ten years earlier. The second occurred during the 1971 civil war, when up to 8 million Hindus (70 per cent of the Hindu population of East Pakistan) fled the country and as many as 2.4 million died, including from being deliberately targeted by the Pakistan Army and its local allies. The overwhelming majority of Hindus who have left Bangladesh have gone to India, although small numbers have also gone to western countries.

   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, but local sources told DFAT that that situation is now changing and more Hindus are being recruited.

   Like other minorities, the Hindu community is disproportionately affected by historical and continuing land appropriation (‘land grabbing’). During the 1965 war between Pakistan and India, the then Pakistani government designated Hindus as ‘enemies’ and many had their property seized under the Enemy Property Act (1965). The Vested Properties Return (Amendment) Act (2011) allowed Hindus to apply for the return of, or compensation for, property seized under the 1965 Act. However, Hindu communities and advocacy organisations have complained that the Act is too narrowly defined, and the application process cumbersome and convoluted. In June 2016, an NGO representing organisations with claims for property
   returns alleged that government officials tasked with reviewing claims were denying them even when required documentation was in order, or were classifying properties as state-owned 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, activists from the Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami party 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. 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. The 2018 election was not characterised by such violence.

   The small-scale localised attacks carried out by Islamist militant groups against minority religious and social groups across the country in 2013-16 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.

   DFAT is not aware of any subsequent attacks of a similar nature. There have been occasional cases of mob violence against Hindu targets. In October 2016, a mob of at least 100 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. Initial media reports suggested Islamists had incited the violence by alleging a 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 planted, most likely as a means to incite the violence. A NCHR investigation concluded that the incident was a pre-planned effort aimed at appropriating Hindu land. Authorities arrested and/or charged more than 1000 people connected to the incident, including a local police officer, while the AL suspended three local leaders from the party for their involvement. In a separate incident in November 2017, a mob of approximately 20,000 in Rangpur district in northern Bangladesh set fire to and vandalised approximately 30 private homes belonging to Hindus. The violence followed a Facebook posting judged to demean the Prophet Muhammad. A press report stated one person was killed during the incident, and five suffered critical injuries. Police arrested more than 50 in the wake of the attack, and the government pledged to compensate those affected.

   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. DFAT assesses that Hindus face a low risk of societal discrimination in the form of physical violence, particularly around periods of heightened political tensions such as national elections. Hindus also face a risk of physical violence in the form of mob attacks triggered by localised factors, although these are relatively uncommon; and from sporadic attacks by Islamist militants.
   …

   POLITICAL OPINION (ACTUAL OR IMPUTED) - Bangladesh has long had a two-party political system dominated by the Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). The AL has traditionally been broadly secular, liberal, rural-based and broadly in favour of relations with India, while the BNP has traditionally been more accommodating of political Islam, conservative, and urban-based. The parties do not necessarily strictly adhere to these policy
   platforms. In recent years, for example, the AL has worked to cultivate close ties with conservative Islamists. The relationship between the two parties is characterised by a  longstanding political and dynastic rivalry, which has increased over time. Both parties derive their legitimacy from their claim to be the true heirs of Bangladeshi nationalism: the AL led the independence movement before and during the 1971 civil war, while the BNP holds as its institutional basis the ideology of Bangladeshi nationalism. The rivalry between the two parties is also deeply personal at the highest levels: the AL’s leader, Sheikh Hasina, is the daughter of the ‘Father of the Nation’ Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and the BNP’s leader, Khaleda Zia, is the
   widow of the party’s founder, former General and President Ziaur Rahman. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Ziaur Rahman were both assassinated in office, and their respective parties view them as martyrs.

   Politics in Bangladesh generally centres on political personalities, and social, political and workplace connections, alongside or instead of broader party policies. Political patronage to particular figures is a motivating factor in voting, campaigning and party membership. Similarly, family alliances tend to be very important. Both of the major parties are organised into auxiliary organisations, for example student leagues or women’s leagues, sometimes based around particular professions, such as lawyers or doctors.

   Being a member of a political party or one of its auxiliary organisations may assist in getting a job. There are, however, a very large number of job seekers in Bangladesh, and such
   membership is unlikely to be the sole determinant of whether or not someone is able to gain employment. Social networks and personality-driven politics are important in Bangladesh. Payment of bribes to secure employment is also common, along with patronage and cronyism.
   DFAT has not seen evidence of forced recruitment to political parties, and considers it unlikely to occur. Parties hold membership campaigns each year, through which parties recruit large numbers of members. According to a 2018 survey by the Asia Foundation, around 80 per cent of Bangladeshis have a limited interest in politics, and those that do are not necessarily  members of any party.

   Since independence, the two parties have, for the most part, alternated in the roles of ruling party and opposition. The ruling party’s affiliated organisations have historically controlled all public institutions while that party has been in power, and both the AL and BNP have used the state machinery against government opponents while in office.

   Since it came to power in 2008, the AL has considerably restricted the activities of opposition
   political parties, particularly the BNP and JI (see relevant sections). These restrictions have included:
   - using police and other security forces to arrest thousands of opposition political party members and supporters, often in conjunction with political demonstrations;
   - using police and other security forces to prevent opposition parties from holding meetings and
   demonstrations; and
   - pressuring opposition candidates to withdraw from local and municipal elections, including through preventing them from submitting election nominations.

   Authorities have also prevented opposition figures from leaving the country. Many, including former BNP Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, have faced legal sanction, including sedition charges. In October 2017, authorities issued two further arrest warrants for Khaleda Zia, who was at the time travelling outside Bangladesh and who has spent extended periods in custody.

   While the frequency of political blogging has reduced within Bangladesh, most political blogs about Bangladesh are now written outside the country (see Media). Major political parties have a strong presence abroad, including in Australia. It is unclear whether local party activists based abroad actively monitor social media and/or report back to party headquarters in Bangladesh, but DFAT assesses that this is possible.

   DFAT assesses that, under the current AL government, senior members of opposition political parties (particularly the BNP) face a high risk of politically motivated arrest, legal charges, and travel bans. Active members of opposition political parties and auxiliary organisations who participate in demonstrations also face a high risk of arrest and physical violence, both from security forces and ruling party activists. This risk is elevated around times of heightened political tension, including elections. Those who are members of opposition political parties and auxiliary organisations but who do not engage in political activities and demonstrations face a lower risk of arrest, although this may vary according to location and timing.

   Awami League (AL) - The AL traces its history to the 1947 partition of India and Pakistan, and emphasises its role in the separation of East Pakistan to become Bangladesh. Its policy platforms include secularism, liberalism, cooperation with India, and rural and agricultural based policies. At the top of the party is the Central Committee, known as the Presidium. There are 15 members of the Presidium, including the Prime Minister. The Presidium is part of an 81-person Central Working Party and is supported by an advisory committee of technical advisers. Each district and sub-district (upazila) has its own committee. Some also join Political Auxiliary Organisations and rise through the ranks. The party holds membership campaigns every year through which people can apply for membership. Applicants are required to pay a fee of about 20 taka (about 30 cents). Once people have joined it takes two years for them to be admitted as full members. People are involved at different levels, including in village politics or in auxiliary committees. There is no official distinction between levels of supporters, but people
   are commonly involved in different wings of the party and focus on different jurisdictions, such as the village or district level. The party also has overseas wings for the Bangladeshi diaspora, which exist in some major cities in Australia as well as other countries.

   The AL has recently made efforts to increase social inclusion in state institutions, including through increasing the recruitment of minorities into the police and armed forces. Some minority groups in Bangladesh told DFAT that they have experienced less discrimination and violence under the AL in its recent terms in office than they had under earlier AL governments.
   Intra-party violence reportedly occurs regularly, including in the lead-up to the 2018 election and around sub-national elections and student organisation elections. Such violence is usually about disputes over candidate pre-selection or internal disputes between business people. While often described as ‘factional’ violence, the factions may be personality or patronage-based rather than ideologically based. The rate of intra-party violence in the lead-up to the 2018 election was reportedly lower than in previous years. The party has strong disciplinary policies to deal with rogue candidates, and has used these policies on occasion to expel such candidates from the party. People involved in political disputes may be both the victims and perpetrators of violence.

   DFAT assesses that the patronage and personality-based nature of political alliances within the AL, and other disputes between AL members, has the potential to lead to violence. The extent of the violence, whether affecting an AL candidate or their supporters, is dependent on the political and social profile and supporter base of the disappointed candidate.

   Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) - The BNP was founded in 1978 following the assassination of President Mujibur Rahman, and was established on a platform of Bangladeshi nationalism and Islamic identity. At its founding, and at the 2014 election, it cooperated with JI. In the lead-up to the 2018 election, however, BNP attempted to distance itself from JI as a way to demonstrate that it did not support extremist ideology.

   The BNP Standing Committee is the top decision-making body of the party. Various secretaries have responsibility over political portfolios, such as foreign affairs or information, within that body. Various committees at the district and upazila level also exist. As with the AL, Political Auxiliary Organisations play an important part in the membership activities at the grassroots of the party. Like the AL, the BNP has a large diaspora network and engages strongly with expatriate Bangladeshi citizens and people of Bangladeshi descent living in other countries, including Australia. BNP members who are not Bangladeshi citizens (but who live in diaspora communities) claim that they have had visa applications to visit the country denied. DFAT does not know whether diaspora organisations report back to the domestic party on activities of their local BNP branch.

   BNP figures allege that they have been subjected to enforced disappearance after raids on private homes and party offices (see Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances). While such allegations typically involve houses being raided at night, daylight raids on party offices have also been reported. The BNP claims that authorities have frequently arrested their supporters during protests for alleged criminal damage or assault on police with little supporting evidence, while alleging that violence against BNP supporters perpetrated by AL members occurs with impunity.

   Former BNP Prime Minister Khaleda Zia was convicted and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment on graft charges in February 2018, and separately sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for corruption in October 2018. The BNP claims that the charges against Zia are politically motivated and that her treatment while in prison has been in breach of her human rights.

   DFAT assesses that allegations of violence against BNP figures are credible, and that high-profile figures are more likely to be targeted by charges that may be politically motivated. DFAT assesses that any BNP member who actively opposes the AL government may be targeted for criminal charges, especially if they are involved in violent protests.

   Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) - Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) is the largest Islamist party in Bangladesh, with historical strongholds in Rajshahi (northern Bangladesh) and Chittagong, the country’s second-largest city. JI is committed to the creation of an Islamic state with a sharia legal system, and to the removal of ‘un-Islamic’ laws and practices. The Islami Chhatra Shibir (ICS) is the JI’s student wing, and is one of the largest Islamist student organisations in South Asia. ICS is reportedly one of the strongest student fronts in the Universities of Chittagong, Rajshahi, and
   Jahangirnagar, with a notorious reputation for violence.

   JI strongly supported the Pakistani army during the Liberation War. Five JI leaders convicted by the ICT of war crimes committed during the Liberation War were executed between December 2013 and September 2016. JI has periodically held major strikes and violent demonstrations across the country, particularly against the ICT, which have resulted in large-scale property damage and the deaths of numerous protesters at the hands of security forces. In response to these demonstrations and to militant attacks, authorities have detained thousands of JI members in counter-terrorism operations, including through enforced disappearances.

   Authorities have particularly targeted for arrest the JI’s senior leadership, few of whom remain free and active. Other targets have included prominent leaders, ICS members and, in some cases, family members. Lower-level JI members have reportedly been able to avoid the attention of authorities either through the paying of bribes to AL leaders or by physically relocating. DFAT assesses as credible reports that the situation is better for JI members in villages than in cities.

   JI’s size has significantly reduced in recent years in the wake of the mass arrests, with many former JI members joining other parties (including the AL). DFAT understands, however, that despite its reduced size, JI is still well organised and influential in Bangladesh. Many supporters of JI strongly link their religious and political identities, resulting in a deep personal investment in the party. While JI was banned from participation in the 2014 election on the basis of its anti-secular views, some JI members contested a small number of seats in the 2018 election under the banner of the Jatiya Oikya Front (which also included the BNP). DFAT is not aware of any reports of arrests, harassment, or other forms of discrimination against JI members who contested seats under the Jatiya Oikya Front banner.

   People who are perceived as being supporters of JI have reported being followed or intimidated, including when abroad. Some government critics with no affiliation with JI have reported that they have been accused of having such links as a means of attacking their credibility. Journalists also are reportedly reluctant to report on the party.

   DFAT assesses that senior JI leaders face a high risk of arrest and legal sanction. Active JI members and ICS members who continue to engage in political activities and demonstrations also face a high risk of arrest. Ordinary JI and ICS members who do not engage in political activities and demonstrations face a low risk of arrest, although this may vary according to location. As with other members of opposition parties, JI members may experience fewer employment and business opportunities due to the underground nature of their personal and professional networks and relative lack of influential connections.

   …
   Politically Motivated Violence (PMV) - Bangladesh is historically prone to high levels of politically motivated violence (PMV). Today, PMV manifests in the form of violent clashes between supporters of different factions of the same party (intraparty violence), supporters of rival parties (inter-party violence), between party supporters and law enforcement agencies, and between issues-based, politically motivated protester groups and law enforcement agencies and/or party auxiliary organisations. Fatalities and serious injuries often result from
   these clashes. PMV tends to peak during periods of heightened political unrest, including during elections, strikes and blockades.

   The number of casualties resulting from PMV varies from year-to-year. In 2018, Odhikar reported that 120 people were killed and 7,051 injured in PMV-related incidents, compared with 77 deaths and 4,635 injuries in 2017 and 215 deaths and 9,053 injuries in 2016. The January 2014 national elections were the most violent in Bangladesh’s history, with months of PMV leaving hundreds dead and thousands injured across the country. As was the case in 2015, 2016, and 2018, local government and council elections in March 2019 continued to be marred by high levels of PMV. The period leading up to the December 2018 national elections was also marked with some violence, primarily of an inter-party nature, but PMV-related deaths and casualties were significantly down and the aftermath was relatively peaceful compared with the
   national elections held five years earlier.

   Intra-party violence has become far more common than inter-party violence, particularly between AL factions and individuals. In 2018, Odhikar documented 281 cases of AL intra-party violence resulting in 53 fatalities and 3,225 injuries, but only 14 cases of BNP intra-party violence resulting in three deaths and 115 injuries. These figures were roughly equivalent to those of preceding years. DFAT understands that the high frequency and intense nature of AL intra-party violence can be attributed to the party’s control over state institutions in recent times. This domination has led to competition between rival AL factions and individuals for pre-selection as electoral candidates, and therefore access to, and influence on, processes and outcomes of lucrative contracts, tenders and appointments to senior party positions.
   …

   PREVALENCE OF FRAUD - The increasing use of biometric data collection has limited opportunities for fraud because of the greater capacity for authorities to check suspicious identity documents. DFAT assesses, however, that the use of fraudulent documents and fraudulently obtained genuine documents remains widespread. This risk is exacerbated given that civil documentation is generally held by local issuing offices in paper-based files
   without networked systems.

1. Other recent reports show that religious minorities continue to be targeted sporadically in Bangladesh.[1] Militant Islamist attacks targeting religious minorities have reportedly decreased since mid-2016, however the Islamic State is maintaining a presence in Bangladesh.[2] There was a small increase in terrorist activity in 2019 involving six attacks by IS, five of whom targeted the police although there were no deaths. In November 2019, the government gave a national Antiterrorism Unit ‘operational authority’ to combat terrorism.[3]

   [1]See e.g. Annual Human Rights Report 2019 Bangladesh, Odhikar, 8 February 2020, p.61; Annual Human Rights Report 2020 BANGLADESH', Odhikar, 25 January 2021, p.52; 2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: Bangladesh, US Department of State, 12 May 2021, Exec. Summ., p.1

   [2] Islamic State’s Rejig And Resurgence In South Asia – Analysis, Eurasia Review, 25 May 2020.

   [3]  'Country Reports on Terrorism 2019: Bangladesh, United States Department of State, 24 June 2020, pp.152-153.

2. There have also been reports of attacks on Hindus in recent years following accusations of anti-Islamic sentiment.[4] In early August 2021, four Hindu temples, some shops and households belonging to Hindus in Bangladesh's Khulna district were attacked after an altercation between Hindu and Muslim residents, prompting the police to arrest 10 people and strengthen security in the area.[5]

   [4] Hindu man jailed in Bangladesh for insulting Prophet Mohammed, Eastern Eye, 17 September 2020; Nine idols of Durga temple vandalised in Patuakhali, The Daily Star (Bangladesh), 05 October 2020; Hindu households vandalized, torched for showing support to France, Dhaka Tribune, 01 November 2020; 2020 Report on International Religious Freedom: Bangladesh' US Department of State, 12 May 2021, Sect.III, p.11; After deadly clashes with police Muslims also attacked Hindu homes temple in Bhola, Bdnews24.com, 24 October 2019; Bhola temple attack 400 to 500 unknown persons accused in case filed, Dhaka Tribune, 24 October 2019; Idols desecrated at Tangail Kali Mandir again, Dhaka Tribune, 15 November 2019.

   [5] Religious bigots attack Hindu temples in Bangladesh, Telegraph, The (India), 10 August 2021; Religious Bigots Attack Hindu Temples, Vandalise Idols in Bangladesh, News 18, 09 August 2021.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

3. The applicant submitted his Bangladesh passport. On the basis of this document and the applicant’s oral evidence the Tribunal is satisfied he is a citizen of Bangladesh. The Tribunal assesses the applicant’s claims against Bangladesh as his country of nationality and receiving country.

4. The applicant claims to fear harm in Bangladesh from Jamaat-e-Islami and BNP activists because he changed his support from the BNP to the Awami League, and to fear harm from extremists as a Hindu.

   Credibility

   Applicant’s religion

5. The applicant has consistently claimed to be Hindu. The documents he submitted support his claim to be Hindu.  The Tribunal accepts the applicant is of Hindu religion and from Narsingdi in Bangladesh.

   BNP and Chattra Dal activity

6. The applicant claimed to have joined the youth wing of the BNP, the Chattra Dal, while at university.  He claims his activities with the Chattra Dal amounted to attending their meetings and encouraging people he spoke to to support the BNP.

7. The applicant’s evidence about his Chattra Dal activity was brief but matched his claims to be a low level ordinary student supporter of the Chattra Dal while at university. The Tribunal accepts that it would not be uncommon for university students to join a student political branch.  The Tribunal therefore accepts that the applicant was a low level member and supporter of the JCD while at university and that he attended meetings and encouraged other students to support the BNP, between 1996 and 1998.

8. The applicant claimed that after leaving University he joined the BNP, by being a supporter and attending BNP meetings. He gave evidence that he did not formally join because there was no mechanism to officially join the BNP.  This statement runs counter to the available country information.  However the Tribunal considers the applicant may not have been aware or interested in formally joining the BNP as he considered himself part of the BNP because of his support for the BNP. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was a low level supporter of the BNP, participating in BNP meetings and rallies along with thousands of others in his home area, between the years 1998 and 2008.

   Awami League and Jubo League activity

9. The applicant claims to have changed his allegiance to the Awami League around 2008 because of his concerns regarding the increasing fundamentalism and religious intolerance within the BNP.  The information before the Tribunal indicates that the Awami League gained substantial popular support around this time and that there was increasing fundamentalism and antagonism towards minority religions within the BNP.  The Tribunal accepts that along with the voting majority of Bangladeshis the applicant became a supporter of the Awami League in or around 2008.

10. The Tribunal accepts that during the 2008 and 2014 elections in Bangladesh the applicant encouraged others to vote for the Awami League and that this was the extent of his activities with the Awami League. 

    Attacks on the applicant, his business and his wife

11. The applicant claims that around the 2014 election he and his business were attacked by BNP and JI supporters because the applicant had transferred his support to the Awami League.  He also claims his business and home, or a house, were burned and that at some later point his home was invaded and his wife threatened with sexual assault.

12. The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence regarding the claimed attacks confused and contradictory.  At various times during his provision of written and oral evidence he described different timings, sequences, and details of the attacks.  He also changed his evidence significantly regarding the locations and targets of the claimed attacks.

13. In his Protection visa application form, written in September 2016, he stated that it was after the 2009 election that the BNP and JI started targeting him because he had transferred his support to the AL.  However, throughout his application and review processes, and despite being specifically asked, he has provided no details of any incidents of targeting until the 2014 election.

14. He stated in his Protection visa application form that in January 2014 he and his business were attacked in an attempt to kill the applicant, and he spent eight days in hospital as a result. He further stated that after the war crimes trial gave a death sentence to a BNP leader, BNP militants set fire to his home and business, sexually harassed his wife, and threatened to kill his family.

15. At his Department interview he stated that first his business was set on fire so his shop and [goods] were burned, that this occurred when the applicant was not present, and that within a week the applicant was attacked near his home on a road resulting in his hospitalisation for eight days.  He also stated that it was in June 2015 when the applicant’s home was invaded by BNP and JI people, and his wife threatened with sexual assault.

16. However at his tribunal hearing the applicant gave very different evidence regarding the claimed attacks in the 2014 election period.  He stated that the first attack was an attempt to kill him at his business place in late December 2013, which led to his eight days in hospital. In describing the attack he stated it happened at his business site in front of other workers. His evidence at hearing about the actions and intentions of the attackers was also confused. He spoke of them trying to kill him by beating him for about 20 minutes but also repeatedly telling him not to report their attack to the authorities.  When questioned about the plausibility of this account he changed his evidence to state that they did not beat him continually but would stop intermittently to tell him not to report the attack, and they were not trying to kill him but just to scare or intimidate him. 

17. After the hearing the applicant provided a copy of medical notes on paper with a hospital insignia. The notes refer to a knee and ‘body’ injury and eight days in hospital but provide no detail as to the cause or history of the injury or injuries. The applicant is named in the notes but is referred to as female. The hospital insignia also appears to indicate that the hospital was established in 2015, which is after the November 2013 date of the medical notes.  The Tribunal considers it possible that the reference to the applicant as a woman is because a medical form for female patients was mistakenly used to record the applicant’s details, and not necessarily due to fabrication.  Although unlikely it is also possible the ‘2015’ year in the insignia is a misprint or non-representative of the hospital’s actual existence in 2013.  The handwritten notes and descriptions in the hospital form appear to reflect a genuine knee injury and the treatment for it.  The notes also however indicate an operation was performed, contrary to the applicant’s oral statements that no such procedure was necessary.  During his department interview the applicant showed the delegate a scar on his leg.  On the available evidence the Tribunal gives the applicant the benefit of the doubt that at some time in the past decade the applicant was in hospital in Narsingdi because of an injury to his knee.  However in view of the substantial internal inconsistencies in the evidence submitted by the applicant the Tribunal does not accept that the injury to his leg was the result of an attack upon him by BNP and JI militants or anyone else.

18. The applicant also gave varying evidence about the attack upon and burning down of his business, stating clearly in his Protection visa application and at his hearing that he operated the business until his departure from Bangladesh (in his Protection visa application form) or up until six months before his departure to Australia, around the time he went to [Country 1] (at his tribunal hearing).  However he also stated at hearing that he stopped working at his business a few days after the 2014 election.  When the Tribunal tried to explore with the applicant the cause for this he stated it was because there was an arson attack on his home, two days after the election.  He then changed this to state it was not the home he was living in but a house he owned that his aunt resided in. JI had burned the house because they knew it was the applicant’s house. The applicant stated he never worked again after this incident.  When the Tribunal asked why the burning of the applicant’s other house stopped him from ever working again at his business he then referred to his business place being burned on the same day as his house. The applicant was unable to provide a reasonable explanation why he had not mentioned this when he raised ceasing work and the burning of his house. He also could not explain why he had previously clearly stated that he worked in his business up until six months before his departure to Australia. His response that he continued to receive money from clients after the burning of his business lacks sense and does not adequately address the contradiction.  Given the significant contradictions and omissions in the applicant’s evidence the Tribunal does not accept his business place or a house he owned were subject to arson attacks in 2014.

19. The applicant claimed that his wife was subjected to an attempted sexual assault by BNP and JI supporters.  At hearing he initially omitted mention of this when asked what had happened after the 2014 election claimed attacks. However when further prompted by the Tribunal he then described the attempt upon her as occurring three or four moths after the election, not in mid-2015 as previously described.  The applicant was not able to identify a trigger for the targeting of his wife at this time.  He spoke of the attackers entering the applicant’s home while he was not there and confronting his wife, who was saved by neighbours.  When asked how the assailants could enter his home so readily he stated that his entrance gate was broken and he had not thought to secure it because he did not anticipate any attack on his home.  The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence disingenuous in view of his description of claimed attacks on both him and his other properties, including a home he owned.  In view of the substantial inconsistencies and lack of plausibility the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s home was invaded by JI and BNP supporters and his wife threatened with sexual assault.

20. The applicant also raised at his Department Interview that between June 2015 and March 2016 he received threats over the phone asking for money, he therefore stayed away from Narsingdi, and his wife continued to receive threats and to live in different places.  He did not initially mention this at his Tribunal hearing despite being asked if anything else had happened to him in Bangladesh.  When reminded of his previous statement he responded he had not mentioned it because he had not been asked. He then described phone demands for money but not the need to move home because of them.  He also explained that such demands were common, he did not pay any money, and nothing happened as a consequence.  He gave vague statements about why he assumed the callers were connected to the BNP and JI.

21. The Tribunal gives the applicant the benefit of the doubt that he received phone call demands for money.  It accepts his evidence that did not respond to the demands and suffered no harm as a consequence.

22. The applicant gave contradictory evidence regarding his trip to [Country 1] in 2016.  He stated in his department interview that he went to [Country 1] because of his political problems and the oppression in Bangladesh.  However he also gave evidence that there were no further incidents after the threat to his wife in mid 2015.  He was not able to explain any direct threat to his security which triggered his travel to [Country 1] in mid 2016.  At his tribunal hearing he clarified that he and his wife went to [Country 1] in 2016 for medical reasons to do with his wife’s pregnancy.  The Tribunal considers this evidence, given in a clear and straightforward manner, is more plausible and persuasive than the applicant’s previous version of the reason he went to [Country 1].  The Tribunal therefore accepts that the applicant and his wife went to [Country 1] for medical reasons regarding his wife’s pregnancy, and not to flee harm in Narsingdi.

23. The applicant spoke of being in hiding in Dhaka for five months after returning there from [Country 1] but was not able to reasonably explain why he needed to be in hiding. He was also not able to explain why it was safe for his wife to return alone to Narsingdi but not for him to be there.  The applicant gave additional evidence that he was in Dhaka, at his wife’s sister’s home, making arrangements for his travel to Australia.  The tribunal accepts that the applicant was in Dhaka for several months before coming to Australia but not that he was in hiding there or that he was there because he was unsafe in Narsingdi.

24. The applicant wrote in his Protection visa application form that his wife was hiding in a different area, or different areas, in Bangladesh.  He gave contradictory evidence at his department interview that his wife continued to work at her [workplace].  He further contradicted this information in his Tribunal hearing, stating that his wife continued to live and work in Narsingdi and had returned there from [City 1]. He stated clearly at the beginning of his tribunal hearing that the only places his wife has lived in Bangladesh are her parent’s home, and his home.  When the contradiction was put to the applicant his response was vague.  The tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s wife has ever lived outside of Narsingdi, or away from her home, because of security threats.

25. The applicant also could not adequately explain why he did not try to take further action to report the attacks and have the attackers prosecuted.  The Awami League was in power across the country and the country information shows that the authorities frequently take very forceful actions against disruptive and threatening action by the BNP and JI.  The applicant was not able to identify a political reason why, out of the majority of people who supported the Awami League including those who transferred their support form the BNP, he was singled out and targeted.  His profile and activities with both the BNP and the Awami League were low level.  The result of the 2008 election also indicated that numerous people had changed their support from the BNP, who had been in power, to the Awami League who convincingly won the popular vote.  The applicant did state that his Hindu religion was largely a factor for the political attacks upon him from the JI and the BNP.  The available country information supports the applicant’s claims that Hindus and their homes and businesses were attacked in the lead up to the January 2014 election.  Available reports[6] document in detail the occurrences of attacks on Hindu people and the destruction of their homes and shops in specific parts of Bangladesh, prior to a heavy handed response from the government. The Tribunal could not locate any reports of such incidents happening in the Narsingdi area, but accepts the possibility of this and that such incidents may not have been reported.  However in view of the applicant’s poor and significantly contradictory evidence regarding the claims of personal attacks upon him and his family, the Tribunal does not accept that he or his family or his business or his home or property were targeted at the time of this violence against Hindus.  When describing the attacks upon him he made no mention of any anti-Hindu statements or threats from his attackers, merely threats or accusations centred on the applicant withdrawing his support from the BNP.

    [6] See e.g. Human Rights Watch, ‘Democracy in the Crossfire - Opposition Violence and Government Abuses in the 2014 Pre- and Post-Election Period in Bangladesh’, April 2014.

26. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s reasons for some of the inconsistencies outlined above that he might have made mistakes when recalling the dates and sequences of events.  The Tribunal accepts that the passage of time and lapses in memory can account for minor discrepancies between evidence provided at different stages of the proceedings.   However, in this case the Tribunal does not consider the mistakes to be minor misrepresentations particularly in regard to the sequence, triggers and outcomes of claimed events.

27. For the reasons set out above the Tribunal has serious concerns about the reliability of the applicant’s evidence and the genuineness of key aspects of his claims regarding targeted attacks upon him, his family, his business, and his properties.  The Tribunal does not accept the applicant or his wife or family or his properties or his business were ever threatened or harmed by BNP or JI members or militants in Bangladesh.

    Fear of Harm in Bangladesh

28. The Tribunal has accepted that the applicant is of the Hindu religion, from Narsingdi in Bangladesh. The Tribunal accepts he was a low level past supporter of the Chattra Dal and BNP up until 2008 and then transferred his support to the Awami League and Jubo League.

29. The Tribunal has not accepted that the applicant, his family, his business or his properties were ever the subject of a targeted attack by BNP or JI supporters.

    Fear of Harm because of Political Support

30. The applicant was unable to establish there has been a credible threat or act of harm to him on the basis of his past low level political party support in Bangladesh.

31. He is a supporter of the ruling party, the Awami League. He has not claimed to be involved in any particular faction of the Awami League or in any intra-party rivalries. The available country information also indicates that it is opposition party supporters who are at the primary risk of harm in Bangladesh. The Tribunal is not satisfied there is any reason for the BNP or JI to target the applicant on return to Bangladesh.

1. While the country information also indicates the prevalence of intra-party violence in the Awami League there is no indication before the Tribunal that the applicant has any exposure to or engagement in such rivalries or that he is at any risk of harm from them.  The Tribunal therefore is not satisfied there is a real chance of any harm to the applicant as a result of intra-party conflicts in the Awami League.

2. The applicant has further given evidence that his family is not experiencing any problems in Bangladesh due to his support for the Awami League. At hearing he downplayed the risk to himself for his political affiliations and emphasised the threat he was more worried about was due to his Hindu religion.  The Tribunal notes that at the end of his department interview he also could not specifically identify who will harm him when he returns to Bangladesh and again emphasised that his main problem is due to his Hindu religion.

3. On the evidence before it the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance of the applicant being seriously or significantly harmed in Bangladesh because of his past support for the BNP or his current support of the Awami League, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. There is no indication that the applicant is at risk of harm in Bangladesh for anything else related to his actual or imputed political opinion.  The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied there is real chance of any harm to the applicant as result of his political opinion.

   Fear of Harm as a Hindu

4. The applicant gave evidence that he did not personally experience harm in Bangladesh because of his minority religion apart from his claims of politically motivated attacks upon him, which the Tribunal has not accepted as credible.  He spoke of the religious minorities suffering a lot but not being subject to such suffering himself.  He gave evidence of having received a good education and a university masters, and of establishing a successful [specified] business in Bangladesh.   He also spoke of his brother and wife living and working without problem in Bangladesh. In light of the applicant’s accepted evidence the Tribunal concludes that the applicant was not subjected to serious or significant harm in Bangladesh because of his Hindu religion.

5. The country information, which the Tribunal accepts shows that Hindus, their homes businesses and temples, have been subjected to attacks in parts of Bangladesh. The country information also shows that the Bangladesh authorities take forceful action to quell attacks and prosecute offenders.  DFAT reports that Hindus make up the largest religious minority in Bangladesh and that there are no legal or other restrictions to prevent Hindus in Bangladesh freely practising their religion or participating in broader society.  Attacks and violence have tended to occur at election time and significant politicised events.  Reports show that there has been an increase in attacks against religious minorities in recent years due to a rise in Islamic extremism which has created feelings of insecurity, anxiety, vulnerability and fear within the Hindu community. The reports indicate that the Bangladesh government has shown willingness to investigate and arrest perpetrators, provide protection to likely targets and actively combat extremist and terrorist groups.

6. In sum the country information highlights the targeting of Hindus in Bangladesh, in particular situations and from time to time, as well as the authorities’ actions to combat the targeting and to take action against perpetrators.  In the Tribunal’s view, the available country information does disclose a chance of future harm to the applicant, as a Hindu, if he returns to Bangladesh.  However the nature, scale and frequency of attacks against Hindus and their property does not support that there is any more than a remote chance that the applicant, would be subjected to serious or significant harm as a Hindu on return to Bangladesh.   

7. The Tribunal notes that Hindus are a sizable part of the population in Bangladesh. As shown by the personal experiences of the applicant and his family, communities of Hindus are living there without being subjected to violence or targeting. The applicant does not have a profile which would make him vulnerable to targeting as a Hindu.  The accepted evidence provided by the applicant did not disclose that he or his family are personally threatened with any harm as Hindus in Bangladesh.

8. If he returns to Bangladesh the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will be able to continue to practice and identify as a Hindu without being subjected to a real chance of serious or significant harm.

9. In assessing the applicant’s personal circumstances together with the available country information, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance of the applicant being subjected to serious or significant harm in Bangladesh because of his Hindu religion.

   Extortion

10. In his initial Protection visa application the applicant claimed to fear harm from people demanding money over the phone.  At hearing he clarified that this was common in Bangladesh and he had not suffered any harm, or had to move home, because of the demands or because of his lack of response to them.  The Tribunal therefore considers there is no real chance of serious or significant harm to the applicant as a result of phone call demands to him or his family for money.

    CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS

11. The applicant has not raised any other claims to fear serious or significant harm in Bangladesh and none arise on the information before the Tribunal.

12. On the information before it and for the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh as defined by s.5J of the Act, or that there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm upon return to Bangladesh.

13. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa).

14. 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 criterion in s.36(2).

    DECISION

15. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

    Melissa McAdam
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT  -  Extract from Migration Act 1958

    5 (1) Interpretation

    …

    cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:

    (a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or

    (b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;

    but does not include an act or omission:

    (c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

    (d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:

    (a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or

    (b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:

    (a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or

    (b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or

    (c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or

    (d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or

    (e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;

    but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.

    …

    receiving country,  in relation to a non-citizen, means:

    (a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or

    (b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.

    …

    5H    Meaning of refugee

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:

    (a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or

    (b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.

    Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.

    …

    5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:

    (a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and

    (b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.

    Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.

    (2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.

    Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.

    (3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:

    (a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or

    (b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or

    (c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:

    (i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;

    (ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;

    (iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;

    (iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;

    (v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;

    (vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

    (4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):

    (a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and

    (b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and

    (c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.

    (5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:

    (a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;

    (b)     significant physical harassment of the person;

    (c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;

    (d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;

    (f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.

    (6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

    5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family

    For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:

    (a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and

    (b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:

    (i)the first person has ever experienced; or

    (ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

    where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.

    Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

    5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family

    For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:

    (a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and

    (b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and

    (c)     any of the following apply:

    (i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;

    (ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;

    (iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

    (d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

    5LA Effective protection measures

    (1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:

    (a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:

    (i)the relevant State; or

    (ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

    (b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.

    (2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:

    (a)     the person can access the protection; and

    (b)     the protection is durable; and

    (c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.

    …

    36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act

    …

    (2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:

    (a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or

    (aa)  a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) 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 non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

    (c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:

    (i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and

    (ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

    (2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:

    (a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or

    (b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

    (c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or

    (d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

    (e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

    (2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:

    (a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or

    (c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.

    …