1907568 (Refugee)

This matter concerned a protection visa application made on behalf of a child applicant, born in Australia, whose parents and sister had previously had their own protection visa applications refused. The dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was whether the applicant was owed protection obligations under Australian law. The applicant's claims, as articulated by his father, centred on the father's alleged political activities as a leader within the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the perceived persecution of BNP members by the ruling Bangladesh Awami League (AL) government. The applicant's father also raised concerns about general insecurity in Bangladesh, the potential for returnees to be perceived as wealthy, and health conditions.

The AAT was required to determine whether the applicant faced a real chance of persecution involving serious harm for reasons of political opinion, or any other Convention ground, if returned to Bangladesh. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant was eligible for complementary protection, assessing if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, he would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal also noted the possibility of ministerial intervention under sections 417 and 195A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), particularly in light of the applicant's sister being an Australian citizen and the applicant's long residence in Australia.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal considered a range of evidence, including the applicant's visa application, statements from his parents, country information reports, and academic reports for the applicant and his sister. The Tribunal found the father's claims regarding his political activities and the risk of persecution to be unconvincing, noting inconsistencies in his evidence and a delay in applying for protection after a change of government in Bangladesh. The Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of persecution involving serious harm for any of the Convention grounds. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would suffer significant harm under the complementary protection provisions. While acknowledging the applicant's sister's Australian citizenship and the family's long residence, the Tribunal did not consider these factors sufficient to alter its assessment of the protection claims.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the protection visa application was refused. The Tribunal also noted that requests for ministerial intervention by the applicant and his parents had previously been refused by the Department.