1826834 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an applicant for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa. The applicant had made two applications for this visa. The first application was made on 19 August 2016, and the second application was made on 17 September 2020. The delegate refused the second application on 10 February 2022. The applicant sought review of this refusal by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal noted that the second visa application was invalid from its inception due to being barred under s 48A of the Migration Act 1958.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, in relation to the first visa application. This required assessing whether the applicant was a refugee, meaning they had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether effective protection measures were available in Bangladesh. The Tribunal also had to determine the validity of the second visa application.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of fleeing Bangladesh due to fear of persecution by members of the Awami League and the police. The applicant alleged false accusations of being a Jubo Dal worker and involvement in an attempted shooting, leading to threats of death, false charges, and an arrest warrant. The Tribunal found that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, and that the persecution would involve serious harm, specifically a threat to life and liberty, and systematic and discriminatory conduct. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant's claims regarding the events of July 2012 were credible and that the police actions and threats from Awami League supporters indicated a lack of effective protection in Bangladesh.

The Tribunal set aside the delegate's refusal of the second visa application and substituted it with a decision that the application was invalid. However, for the first visa application, the Tribunal was satisfied that Australia had protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) and remitted the matter with that direction.