1836973 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for a protection visa by a national of Bangladesh. The applicant claimed to be a supporter and financial contributor to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and an opponent of the ruling Awami League (AL). He alleged that he had been subjected to intimidation, threats, and extortion by supporters of the AL, including physical attack and demands for substantial sums of money. The applicant also claimed that he and his family feared harm, including torture, abduction, and murder, if returned to Bangladesh due to his political activities and business profile, and that effective protection from the Bangladeshi authorities would not be available. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant qualified as a refugee or met the criteria for complementary protection, and whether his wife and child were members of the same family unit.

The Tribunal was required to assess whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of his political opinion, as defined by section 5J of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved considering whether there was a real chance of persecution, whether such persecution would involve serious harm, and whether effective protection measures were available in Bangladesh. The Tribunal also needed to consider the claims of the other applicants as members of the same family unit. The applicant's claims included allegations of being targeted by an AL-affiliated gang, extortion, and physical assault, leading to his departure from Bangladesh with his family.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered extensive country information regarding the use of state machinery by the ruling AL against political opponents in Bangladesh, including arrests, detentions, and enforced disappearances by security forces like the Rapid Action Battalion (RAB). The Tribunal found that effective protection measures would not be available to the applicant in Bangladesh and that relocation within the country would not offer protection from the feared harm. Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of his political opinion and met the criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal also found that the other applicants were members of the same family unit as the primary applicant.

The Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with directions that the first applicant satisfies section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act*, and that the other applicants satisfy section 36(2)(b)(i) on the basis of membership of the same family unit as the first applicant.