1821817 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered whether an applicant, who identified as being of Tanchangya ethnicity and Buddhist religion from Bangladesh, was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. The applicant's claims included imputed political opinion arising from protest activity outside of Bangladesh, questioning at the airport, membership of religious and/or Jumma organisations, a claimed land dispute, and the death and disappearance of their father, who was allegedly a member of the Shantibahini.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether they would face a real risk of significant harm if returned to Bangladesh. This involved assessing the country information regarding the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), indigenous people, Buddhists and other religious minorities, security concerns, Islamic extremism, and the feasibility of internal relocation to an urban area such as Dhaka. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's right to peaceful protest and the risks associated with their alleged affiliations and past experiences.

The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in section 36(2B) of the Act, which provides that there is no real risk of significant harm if it is reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where such a risk would not exist, or if the applicant could obtain protection from an authority of the country. The Tribunal also considered whether any risk faced was general to the population or specific to the applicant. After reviewing the provided country information and the applicant's claims, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.