1721914 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant, who was born in Australia, claimed she would face harm if returned to Bangladesh due to her father's alleged membership and high-profile involvement with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). She also claimed cultural difficulties in integrating into Bangladeshi society, having lived only in Australia and speaking English, and asserted she had health problems requiring treatment in Australia. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of her father's statutory declaration detailing his alleged political involvement, fear of persecution by the Awami League, and pending court cases in Bangladesh.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, or alternatively, the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). This required the Tribunal to determine if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Bangladesh, the applicant would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal was also required to consider the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', 'Complementary Protection Guidelines', and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Home Affairs and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, as mandated by Ministerial Direction No. 84.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. It found that the applicant's father was not a credible witness regarding his claimed experiences in Bangladesh, his political involvement, or the harm he alleged to have suffered or feared. The Tribunal was satisfied that his claims were fabricated to support a favourable migration outcome and that any involvement with the Australian BNP was superficial and would cease upon his return to Bangladesh. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was at risk of harm due to her father's alleged profile. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant would not suffer serious harm or discrimination as a member of a particular social group, would be able to access necessary medical treatment for her asthma, and would not be deprived of her basic human rights upon return to Bangladesh. The Tribunal was ultimately not satisfied that the applicant was at risk of serious or significant harm.