1729912 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual who claimed to be a stateless Rohingya from Myanmar. The applicant arrived in Australia in May 2013 as an undocumented maritime arrival and subsequently applied for a protection visa. The core of the dispute revolved around the applicant's claimed identity and nationality, and whether he faced persecution or significant harm based on his Rohingya ethnicity from Myanmar, or if Bangladesh was the relevant country of reference. The decision under review was made by a delegate of the Minister.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had credibly claimed to be a stateless Rohingya from Myanmar, and consequently, whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason or faced a real risk of significant harm based on Myanmar as the country of reference. Alternatively, the Tribunal had to consider whether another country, such as Bangladesh, was the relevant country of reference for assessing the applicant's claims against the provisions of sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was also required to consider the circumstances under which there is not taken to be a real risk of significant harm, as outlined in section 36(2B) of the Act, including the possibility of reasonable relocation within a country or the availability of protection from a country's authorities.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant was a national of Bangladesh and not a stateless Rohingya from Myanmar. This conclusion was based on significant discrepancies and credibility issues identified in the applicant's claims. Evidence considered included country information assessments and departmental guidelines. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's family appeared to be wealthy, with properties in Bangladesh, and that siblings had post-secondary qualifications. Furthermore, the applicant's sister had previously travelled to Australia as a Bangladeshi national, and a site visit to the family residence in Dhaka revealed a well-appointed home. The father had also claimed the applicant had previously held a Bangladeshi passport. These factors, among others, led the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant's claims of systematic discrimination and blackmail due to fraudulent Bangladeshi identity documents were not accepted, and that the applicant did not face a real risk of significant harm in Myanmar or Bangladesh that would warrant the grant of a protection visa.