1907819 (Refugee)

1907819 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 3710 (21 August 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1907819
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Bangladesh
MEMBER:Roslyn Smidt
DATE:21 August 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Statement made on 21 August 2023 at 10:41 AM

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Bangladesh – Bangladesh National Party (BNP) – involvement with the BNP in Australia – credibility concerns – contradictory evidence – new claims not raised earlier – fraudulent documents – illegal departure from the country – failed asylum seeker – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5AA, 5H, 5J, 36, 65, 91K
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
CASES
DBB16 v MIBP (2018) 260 FCR 447
MICMSMA v CBW20 [2021] FCAFC 63

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 17 July 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He arrived in Australia by sea at the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands [in] April 2013. At that time, he was considered to be an unauthorised maritime arrival. On 1 June 2016 he applied for an XE-790 visa. This application was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 17 July 2017. Because the applicant was considered to be an unauthorised maritime arrival the decision was referred to the Immigration Assessment Authority (IAA) which purported to affirm the delegate’s decision on 4 December 2017.
In DBB16 v MIBP (2018) 260 FCR 447, the Full Federal Court determined that a person who arrived in Australia by sea at the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands is not an ‘unauthorised maritime arrival’, as was defined in s 5AA of the Act. Accordingly, the applicant is not a ‘fast track applicant’, as defined in s 5(1) of the Act, and a decision refusing to grant them a SHEV visa is a Part 7-reviewable decision in the Migration and Refugee Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. However, prior to the lodgement of his SHEV application in June 2016, the applicant had been granted a Temporary Safe Haven (Subclass 449 - Humanitarian Stay (Temporary) visa). At the time, this was thought to trigger a statutory bar in s 91K of the Act which prevented visa applications being made in Australia by people who arrived in Australia by sea at the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. It therefore appeared that the 1 June 2016 application was invalid.
On 27 August 2020 the applicant was advised that his 2016 application was invalid. He was also advised that the bar set out in s 91K had been lifted and invited to lodge another application for a SHEV. He lodged a SHEV application on 23 September 2020. This application was purportedly refused by a differing delegate on 16 December 2020. On 31 December 2020 the applicant applied for review of that decision by the Tribunal [AAT file 2018582]. That case was also constituted to me.
On 4 May 2021 the Full Federal Court in MICMSMA v CBW20 [2021] FCAFC 63 (CBW20), determined that s 91K does not apply to a person who arrived in Australia by sea at the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands. As a result, the application lodged on 1 June 2016 is a valid application reviewable by the Tribunal, as set out in detail in my decision. For reasons set out in my decision on 2018582, it also meant that the application lodged on 23 September 2020 was invalid.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 24 April 2023 and 24 July 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Bengali and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b) or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)–(6) and ss 5K–LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a [age]-year-old single man of Sunni Muslim faith and Bengali ethnicity from [Village 1], Kolaroa Satkhira Province in Bangladesh. He lived in the same village for most of his life. He completed his education in about 2004. He worked in [industry] before leaving Bangladesh. [Number] of his brothers have resided in [Country 1] since 2018. His parents, another brother and [number] sisters remain in Bangladesh.
The applicant arrived in Australia by boat [in] April 2013. He was released from migration detention in June 2013. Shortly afterwards he moved to Sydney where he continues to reside.
SUMMARY OF CLAIMS
The applicant claims that he is at risk of harm on return to Bangladesh because he has been an active member of the BNP for many years, because he left Bangladesh illegally, because he has lived in Australia and because he has sought protection while in Australia.
COUNTRY INFORMATION
The world bank classifies Bangladesh as a lower-middle income country. Most Bangladeshis work in the informal sector where conditions are poor and wages low. Welfare programs are limited and access to health care is generally poor. Corruption is widespread and together with political patronage can impact on access to welfare, employment in the public sector and other government services.
Security threats are largely related to politically motivated violence, most commonly clashes between rival political groups or during political rallies. Extremist violence has also been a problem in some areas.
Crime is also a significant problem. Murder and assault are common crimes. Extortion, theft and violent robbery are significant threats on a day-to-day basis.
Professionalism varies across the police service. Senior officers are relatively well trained, but lower ranks are poorly paid and poorly trained which encourages corruption and solicitation of bribes is common. Demands for bribes can involve threat or acts of violence and may also be used to apply political pressure. Political patronage may also affect outcomes of police complaints. Most people do not trust the police, given their reputation for corruption and violence and are likely avoid contact with them.
Politics in Bangladesh
The Awami League (AL) has been in power in Bangladesh since December 2008. It has increasingly sought to restrict the activities of opposition political parties, particularly the BNP and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI). According to the reports 18 opposition figures were arrested or disappeared between January and October 2021, often in conjunction with political demonstrations. Human rights groups claim that security forces prevent opposition parties from holding meetings and demonstrations, and pressure opposition candidates to withdraw from elections, including through preventing them from submitting election nominations or by having them charged with political crimes like sedition.
The BNP is a legal political party which is currently the main opposition in Bangladesh. It has significantly reduced in visibility in recent years, in part, this is because the BNP boycotted recent elections, claiming that they were fixed by AL. In local government elections held between 2020 and 2021, BNP candidates won only 11 mayoral races out of more than 800.
Former BNP Prime Minister, Khaleda Zia, was convicted in February 2018 on graft charges and remains in home detention. BNP claims that these charges were politically motivated. She is unwell and protests in November 2021, demanding that she be allowed to go overseas to seek treatment reportedly attracted thousands, demonstrating BNP’s continued capacity to attract supporters.
The BNP claims that AL members perpetrate violence against their supporters with impunity and that BNP supporters who have participated in demonstrations have been arrested for alleged criminal damage or assault. False criminal charges and vexatious civil court procedures are used to harass members of the BNP. DFAT assesses that any BNP member who actively opposes the government can be targeted through criminal charges, and especially if they are involved in violent protests. They also note that it is also possible that charges related to violence may be genuine as protests in Bangladesh are often very violent.
According to DFAT, BNP members with seniority and reputation are more likely to attract government attention than lower-level members. There are fewer examples of violence or discrimination against low-level members. While in theory, any BNP member could be arrested on charges such as involvement in violence, obstructing police or corruption activities such as attending rallies or attempting to convince others to join the party are less likely to attract attention or lead to arrest.
The BNP has a large diaspora network and is very engaged with overseas Bangladeshis, including Australia. DFAT does not know whether diaspora organisations report back to the domestic party on activities of members in Australia.
According to DFAT the Bangladesh government is not interested in checking or monitoring everyone returning from overseas and does not have the capacity to do so. If someone has a particular political profile, their entry into Bangladesh could be noted. However, DFAT is not aware of any instances of returnees being detained at the country’s borders for overseas political activities.
Illegal departure
The Bangladeshi Department of Immigration and Passports conducts immigration checks and maintains a list of convicted criminals and persons wanted by security forces and intelligence agencies (exit control list). The department mostly uses the list to determine whether to issue passports but may also use it to prevent people from leaving the country. DFAT is aware of people being detained trying to leave Bangladesh, including cases in which authorities have prevented both senior members of the BNP leadership and ordinary BNP members from leaving the country.
According to DFAT the Overseas Employment and Migrants Act 2013 (OEMA) makes it an offence to depart from Bangladesh other than in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Act. Bangladeshis require a valid passport and visas (depending on the destination country) to depart Bangladesh. The OEMA (like the previous 1982 ordinance) is designed to protect Bangladeshis from human trafficking (rather than to prosecute illegal exit or prosecute failed asylum applications, for example) and even those provisions are rarely enforced. It is unlikely that any person returning after a failed asylum attempt in Australia would be prosecuted under the legislation or the previous 1982 ordinance and DFAT is not aware of any cases of this happening.
I note that it is possible for citizens of Bangladesh to obtain replacement passports from the Bangladesh High Commission or Consulates.[1]
[1] Passport - Consulate General of Bangladesh, Sydney (cgbdsydney.gov.bd)
Living in Australia and seeking asylum
It is possible that a person who is involuntarily returned by a foreign government after travelling on a fraudulent document will be detained and questioned by police once back in Bangladesh. However, these are isolated and high-profile cases and DFAT is not aware of a substantial pattern of holders of fraudulent passports being detained or questioned in this way.
Bangladesh is a country with a very large diaspora and a strong outward migration culture, and tens of thousands of Bangladeshis exit and enter the country for employment each year. DFAT assesses that most returnees, including failed asylum seekers, are unlikely to face adverse attention regardless of whether they have returned voluntarily or involuntarily. Authorities take an interest in high-profile individuals, but the vast majority of returning Bangladeshis would not attract such interest.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Entry interview
The applicant was first interviewed on 18 April 2013. The main purpose of that interview was to establish his identity and the manner of his travel to Australia. He was also questioned briefly about his experiences in Bangladesh. His responses were confused. He said that there were political problems between the Awami League, Jamaat-I-Islam and Bangladesh National Party [BNP] and they would kidnap and torture people if they had doubts about them, but also said that there were no armed or political or religious groups operating in his area, that he had not been threatened and he had not fled Bangladesh because of violence. He initially said that neither he nor any member of his family had been associated with or involved with any political group or organisation or activities such as protests against the government, but later said that he worked for the BNP whenever they called him. He said he had never been arrested or detained and that the police, security and intelligence bodies had not impacted on his day-to-day life in Bangladesh.
The applicant said that he left Bangladesh by boat in about March 2013 without any documents after paying a large sum of money to a people smuggler.
SHEV application lodged on 3 June 2016
This application was prepared with the assistance of a registered migration agent. In answer to question 76 on the 866 application form, the applicant said that he was not the subject of any conviction, charge, investigation or crime.
In relatively brief responses to other questions on the form the applicant claimed that he had been involved with the BNP and that he was a victim of political harassment and death threats from local Awami League members when the party was in power. They tried to kill him several times. His family tried to complain to the local police, but they were told the police could not accept complaints against the ruling party.
The applicant stated that he had remained in his home village until February 2013. He also said that he had moved to his maternal grandfather’s house at some time, but local Awami League members recognised him and he continued to receive threats. He also stated that he had been in Dhaka at some time. He decided to leave the country.
First delegate’s interview on 11 July 2017[2]
[2] This account is based on the delegate’s decision and information in the IAA decision.
The applicant said that the statement of claims provided in his application had not been read back to him by the migration agent who prepared it. No specific errors were mentioned.
The applicant said that he had been a BNP member since 2005. He paid an annual fee of 5 taka which his parents continued to pay following his departure. He attended meetings, participated in processions and often assisted with the organisation of these events. Prior to December 2008, he attended meetings at the BNP office. That building was destroyed when the Awami League came to power and meetings were held in smaller offices and private residences. About 15 to 20 committee members attended meetings, which were held monthly or fortnightly depending on need. Attendees discussed BNP programs and what needed to be done. At the time there were many kidnappings and other atrocities by the police and others. Many of the people who attended these meetings had been jailed or were in hiding at the time of the interview.
The applicant said that he had been involved in the 2009 election [elections were held on 29 December 2008]. His activities included going door to door to convince people to support the party and helping to organise processions and the production and distribution of posters and banners.
When he was doing BNP work at a bazaar with some friends in 2009, some Awami League members intended to attack them. However, the Awami League members were speaking very loudly so he and his friends could hear them and escaped before they were attacked. Another incident occurred in 2010 when the Awami League attacked a meeting he was attending and verbally abused people. Not many Awami League members were involved in the attack so they could not harm anyone, but the BNP members “scattered”.
When asked if he had been threatened or harmed apart from when he was part of a group of BNP supporters, he said that he been threatened and verbally abused on innumerable occasions. When asked for further details he said that he had received death threats but provided few details.
The applicant claimed that in 2012 a procession of about 400 BNP supporters clashed with a procession of about 300 AL supporters in [Upazila 1]. People were blindly attacking each other with sticks and sharp weapons. He was hit in the stomach with a sharp object. He was not arrested and ran away. He showed the delegate a scar on his stomach which he said was the result of injuries received during that event.

The applicant said that one person was killed during the 2012 incident and he was falsely accused of murder. [Number of] people were charged in relation to his death. He was [one of the people] charged. He was not arrested but he surrendered himself to the court when a hearing of the case was held [in] December 2012. He was placed on reporting conditions. He fled Bangladesh before the case was finalised. When asked why he did not leave Bangladesh until March 2013, he said that it was because he had been appearing at court. He also said that only his immediate family knew where he was during that time.
When asked if he had been threatened or harmed by the Awami League or other political parties on any other occasion, the applicant said he had been threatened and verbally abused innumerable times. He described these problems as an everyday thing. When asked for details he said that Awami League members had used abusive language and threatened to kill him but did not provide specific examples. He also said that people in the area were mostly good and he had cordial relations with them, but politically minded people created problems.
The delegate noted that the applicant had not mentioned any of these events during his entry interview. He said that he had been scared because people on the boat told him that if he said anything about having political connections or problems he would be sent away. The delegate reminded him that he had mentioned political problems in Bangladesh during the interview. He said that there were problems between the various parties, and they would kidnap someone or torture them.
The applicant said that about three years before his interview with the delegate (in about 2014), his older brother who was also a member of the BNP had been falsely charged with murder following a political killing. He served a three-year sentence before paying a huge bribe to secure his release. However, the case was not finalised, and he had to report to the police every month.
The applicant said that his father was also a member of the party, but he no longer attended meetings because of his age. All of his siblings support the BNP.
The applicant claimed that he left Bangladesh illegally but did not claim that he feared persecution for that reason or because he had sought protection in Australia.
The delegate accepted that the applicant was a low-level BNP supporter and that he departed Bangladesh illegally. She also appears to have accepted that he was involved in a fight between the BNP and Awami League members in 2012. However, she did not accept that he was targeted by the Awami League and specifically found that he was not attacked at a village bazaar in 2009 or at a BNP meeting in 2010 or that he was accused of murder in late 2012. After reviewing country information on the political situation in Bangladesh she found that the applicant was not at risk of harm for those reasons. The delegate accepted that the applicant left Bangladesh illegally. Despite the fact that no claims had been made in relation to his claimed illegal departure or protection application in Australia, the delegate considered the possibility that he would be at risk of harm for these reasons. After reviewing country information on these issues, she found that he was not at risk of harm for these reasons.
The delegate refused the application on 17 July 2017.
Evidence provided to the IAA
The delegate’s decision was referred to the IAA. On 10 August 2017 the applicant provided several documents to the IAA. According to the dates on these documents they were all issued before the delegate’s decision, but none of them were provided to the Department prior to the referral to the IAA. The documents included:
·     A letter dated [January] 2017 from [Mr A], [Position 1] of the BNP in Australia which states that he had known the applicant since he arrived in Australia in August 2014 and that he was an executive member of the BNP convening committee in Australia. It states that the applicant worked as an opposition activist in Bangladesh and had participated in anti-government demonstrations and rallies and adds that to the best of the author’s knowledge the applicant had been a victim of various violent acts by the Awami League.
·     Copies of receipts in the applicant’s name for a BNP branch in [Upazila 1] from monthly payment of 5 taka in January and February 2011.
·     A letter from the BNP in [Upazila 1] dated [in] October 2011 which confirms that the applicant was an active member of that branch of the BNP for two years.
·     A statement dated [September] 2011 which states that there were 51 members of the full committee of the applicant’s branch of the BNP in Bangladesh and appears to name him.
·     An English translation of a first information report which states that the applicant was [one of the] person accused in a case involving an incident [in] December 2012 when the BNP held an unlawful assembly and several people were “seriously bloodied and grievously injured”.
·     A charge sheet dated [in] June 2013 which is barely legible.
·     Country information or hyperlinks to country information.
The IAA accepted that the applicant may have been a low level supporter of the BNP but found most of the applicant’s claims regarding his involvement with the party lacked credibility and that he did not face a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh.
As noted above, the referral and the IAA decision are no longer valid.
Application lodged on 22 September 2020
The applicant said that he feared serious harm in Bangladesh because he was a supporter of the BNP and a member of the particular social group, of failed asylum seekers who had lived outside Bangladesh for a number of years.
As discussed above, this application is invalid.
Delegate’s interview on 17 November 2020
According to the delegate’s decision the applicant stated that he relied on the claims listed in his first protection application.
When asked about his involvement in the BNP, he said that he had been involved with the party since he was young but he did not become a member until 2001. He was invited to join by members who were aware of his participation in BNP rallies prior to that time. He remained a member of the BNP until he left for Australia in 2013. He joined the BNP because they were supportive of people, and it was a non-violent party.
When asked about the history and ideology of the BNP, the applicant named the founder and stated that the party had participated in general elections in 1979, 1991, 1996 and 2001. When asked about his activities as a member of the BNP, he said that he had participated in meetings and protest rallies. When asked to elaborate he said that there was no fixed timetable and he attended events whenever and wherever they occurred. He said that he had attended meetings of 100–200 members every month or once every two or three months in his local area. During these meetings people spoke about political matters, how to progress the BNP and how to avoid problems. He held the position of [Position 2] at some time. He had a ‘participation role’ in the general election in 2008 which lasted about 7–8 months. This involved collecting votes and attending rallies prior to election day. When asked, he confirmed this was his only role and did not repeat his earlier claim regarding his role as [Position 2].
When asked if he had experienced any harm as a result of his involvement with the BNP, the applicant said that after the [December] 2008 general election, the Awami League and police started killing people from his village. When asked to elaborate, his evidence was confused. He said that the violence continued until December 2012 when he was badly beaten by members of the Awami League when he attended a BNP meeting in his local area. He was left unconscious and hospitalised. His family went to a local police station to file a complaint, but nothing eventuated. Many people from the Awami League physically assaulted him as they were angry that BNP had lost the election in 2012. There was also a protest rally at the time of the December 2012 meeting. Awami League members were present. The applicant confirmed that he was not physically attacked during that rally. He said that he was threatened and told to leave the BNP and join the Awami League. He also claimed that Awami League members came to his village and threatened to bulldoze his home, but this did not occur. He made a complaint at the end of December 2012. He did not have any further contact with the Awami League after that.
The delegate asked the applicant why he had remained in Bangladesh until April 2013. He said that he had not been aware that Australia had a refugee program and added that his father suggested he leave the country. He added that in December 2012, he was facing a charge of murder. When asked to elaborate, he said that his father knew the details, but he was only aware that someone had been killed. He was unable to provide the name of the person he was accused of murdering. He said that documentation about the charge had been provided to the Department. [As noted above, documents relating to charges of some kind were provided in August 2017, but it appears that the second delegate may not have been aware of this]. The applicant said that he had not been involved in any proceedings in Bangladesh, but he was afraid he might have to face court if he returned.
The applicant said that he had resided in Satkhira until a few months before leaving Bangladesh when he moved to his grandparents’ house in Chittagong. He initially stated that he had not experienced any problems in Chittagong, but later said that while he was not harmed, his grandmother had told him that unknown people were looking for him.
When asked whether members of his family remaining in Bangladesh had experienced problems, the applicant said that one of his brothers had been accused of murder in 2014. He was released from on bail in 2018, but he was still facing murder charges. He left Bangladesh in 2018 because he was being harassed by the police. He departed legally on his own passports. The police visited his family home 2–3 times looking for his brother and threatened to bulldoze the family home after which they relocated. His family did not have problems with the authorities after that. He also said that after his brother left Bangladesh, the police were alerted to the fact that he had also left from Bangladesh.
The applicant said that the environment is precarious in Bangladesh and many people are targeted by the police or army. He referred to a recent incident where a Bangladeshi man based in [Country 2], who was married to a girl from the applicant’s local village, was captured by police, tortured and extorted for 10 lakhs taka (approximately 15,000, AUD). He feared he would face similar problems in Bangladesh.
The applicant said that he had joined the BNP in Australia in mid-2014 or 2015. He participated in meetings and responded to messages from [Mr B], the BNP [office bearer] in Australia. Current events in Bangladesh were discussed at the meetings. Apart from attending these meetings, he had not expressed any political opinions publicly or on any social media platforms.
Post interview submissions
On 1 December 2020 the applicant’s representative provided a lengthy submission. It sets out a number of legal arguments and refers to numerous reports and articles on the situation in Bangladesh. It repeats the substance of the applicant’s earlier claims and adds that Awami League supporters regularly harassed him at his small business, demanding he make payments to them. He initially paid out of fear for his life, but eventually refused. A few days later he was kidnapped by a group of men he believes to be part of the Awami League. He was ill-treated but released after his father paid a significant ransom. The incident was reported to the police, but no action was taken.
The applicant’s representative said that supporting documents had not been obtained from the BNP in Bangladesh because of Department concerns about the genuineness of such documents and invited the Department to contact three named BNP leaders by phone in Bangladesh to verify the applicant’s prior involvement. No witness statements or identity documents were provided. The delegate does not appear to have contacted any of these men.
The applicant also provided:
·     Four undated photos apparently taken during his attendance at BNP meetings in Australia in 2020.
·     The letter dated [in] January 2017 from [Mr A], [Position 1] of the BNP Australia dated [November] 2020.
·     A letter dated [in] November 2020 from [Mr A]. It is substantially similar to the 2017 letter. It indicates that the applicant continued to serve as a member of the executive committee and adds that he had participated in general meetings and anniversary events of BNP Australia from 2015 to 2019 and Soldier Revolution and Peace Day Celebrations from 2016 to 2019. In addition, he participated in protests against Sheikh Hasina during her visit [in] April 2018 and a protest against the election in Bangladesh [in] January 2019. He also attended Iftar and a special event for Begum Khaleda Zia, the BNP Chairperson & Former Prime Minister [in] June 2019.
·     A statement from [Mr C], [Position 3] of the BNP in Sydney which states that he had known the applicant for three years. It confirms that the applicant had participated in BNP programs and helped by contacting people to bring them to events and bringing food to events. It claims he would be at risk of imprisonment on false charges if he returns to Bangladesh.
·     A statement from [Mr D] [Position 4] of the BNP in Australia dated [in] December 2020. It states that he had known the applicant for four to five years as they were both on the BNP committee. It states that the applicant had attended all BNP meetings including the general meetings which are held annually and other meetings and events. He often helped to set up the room, prepare food for guests and similar tasks.
The delegate found much of the applicant’s evidence lacked credibility. She accepted that he had been a low-level BNP member and that he left Bangladesh legally but found the remainder of this claims regarding his activities in Bangladesh lacked credibility. She accepted that he had been involved with the BNP in Australia but overall found that his fears of harm in Bangladesh were not well-founded.
Evidence provided to the Tribunal
On 19 April 2023 the applicant provided a number of documents relating to his work in Australia and two character references.
The applicant attended a hearing on 27 April 2023. His representative was not present.
The applicant said that he had worked as a supervisor [in workplaces] for a small company which [undertook specified business] for over five years before leaving Bangladesh. He obtained the job through a brother who did similar work. When asked he said that he had never owned a business in Bangladesh.
The applicant said that he left his home village about six or seven months before he left the country. He went to Chittagong where he lived alone. He did not work. He relied on his savings.
The applicant said that his father was a retired [Occupation 1]. When the BNP was in power, he was the BNP [Position 5] of the [named] division and participated in activities such as organising rallies. He was also the [Position 1] of the Bangladesh Government Industry Club. Many people went to the club when the BNP was in power, but they stopped going when the party lost power.
The applicant confirmed that his entire family continued to support the BNP. Since his departure from Bangladesh, they have received threats from Awami League leaders and the police have visited their home many times. However, nobody has been arrested or physically harmed.
I advised the applicant that it was my understanding the agents in Bangladesh often arranged work visas for [Country 1] and asked if his brothers had obtained visas before going to [Country 1] in 2018. He said that there was a case against one of his brothers at that time. An agent made all of the arrangements for them to go to [Country 1]. They left on legal passports, but he did not know whether they had work visas before they left. They work in [industry]. One of them has established a business and hires people to do the work. Neither of them has experienced problems in [Country 1].
I asked the applicant when he began to participate in BNP events and when he had formally joined the party. He said that he began to participate in BNP activities and joined the party shortly after he left school. He was about [age] years old at that time [about 2007]. He was an ordinary member. He attended meetings and rallies. He received instructions from party leaders and did what they asked. Some of the events he attended were large rallies held in the street. He also attended meetings at the BNP office which were open to all members. When I asked for more information on the meetings at the office, he said that they were held in a club at the office. Many leaders attended and gave instructions, but they were open to all BNP members.
The applicant said that he had worked for or with his uncle [Mr E] who had been a BNP member of parliament for [Upazila 1] until 2006. He stopped working for his uncle some five or six years before he left Bangladesh. When asked for details of these activities his response was confused. It appears that he attended meetings and rallies associated in some way with [Mr E] and that [Mr E] owned the [company] where he worked. He said that [Mr E] had been jailed several times then released on bail but was recently jailed again for [number] years.
I noted that the applicant did not appear to have mentioned [Mr E] prior to the hearing. He said that [Mr E] had been arrested and he could also be arrested if he returned to Bangladesh.
The applicant said that two or three years after he joined the BNP, he was given the position of [Position 6] for the [Upazila 1] constituency. His role involved following instructions and checking letters. I observed that being [Position 6] for the entire constituency seemed like an important position and asked him for more information about his role. He said that the leaders like the [Position 6] gave him instructions and he passed them on to other party members. I observed that he had said that he was the [Position 6]. He said that he had been a [Position 7], not the [Position 6] which was a high-level role.
The applicant said he had never held any other position in the BNP. I noted that he appeared to have told the delegate that he had held the position of [Position 8]. He said that he had been misunderstood. I asked if he had ever been part of a BNP committee. He said that he had not. I noted that he had provided a document which appeared to state that he had been one of 50 members of a BNP committee. He said that the document was correct, but he had forgotten.
I noted that the applicant had claimed that he was active in support of the BNP in the elections held in 2008/2009. He said that was correct. He was involved in meetings and rallies and passed on instructions from the leaders to other members. I asked if he could recall the names of the other parties in the BNP coalition that year. He correctly named the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. He said that another party was called Jashod and that there were 21 parties or branches in total. I advised him that the information I had indicated that there were four parties in the alliance, the BNP, Jamaat-e-Islami, the Bangladesh Jatiya Party and Islami Oikya Jote. He said that he could not recall how many seats the BNP won in the 2008 election.
I advised the applicant that while I acknowledged that it could be difficult remembering things which happened in the past and that the long delays and other problems associated with his case were stressful, I had difficulty accepting that this explained all of his confusion and other problems with his case and I had difficulty accepting he had significant involvement with the BNP in Bangladesh.

I noted that during his entry interview he said that neither he nor any other member of his family had been involved in any political group or organisation or any activities or protests against the government and that he had worked for the BNP whenever they called him. I also noted that in later submissions he had given differing accounts of when he commenced working with the BNP and that his evidence regarding the nature of his work for the party had been vague and confused.
The applicant said that he was afraid that he would be sent back to Bangladesh if he told the truth. I advised him that I found it unlikely that he would have travelled to Australia by boat to seek protection and then have failed to explain his fears. He also said that he had difficulty recalling past events, but he was telling the truth.
I noted that during his April 2013 interview the applicant said that neither he nor any member of his family had faced significant problems in Bangladesh which was at odds with information in his 2016 application which stated that he had been harassed many times and that members of the Awami League had attempted to kill him. It is also at odds with evidence provided during his interview with the delegate in July 2017 when he said that Awami League members had been about to attack him in a bazaar in 2009, that there had been another incident involving Awami League members in 2010 and that he had been injured during a clash with the Awami League members in December 2012. I also noted that during the April 2013 interview he said that he had never been charged with an offence. He repeated this in answer to questions on his June 2016 application form, but during the interview on 11 July 2017 he claimed for the first time that he had been charged with the murder of an Awami League member in December 2012 and had gone to court in relation to these charges [in] December 2012. The applicant said that he remembered making these statements and they were all correct. He said that he had not mentioned the attacks during the April 2013 interview because he had been scared and because he sometimes forgot things.
I noted that during his interview in November 2020 the applicant again said that he had been assaulted and charged with murder in 2012, but he did not appear to have recalled the incidents in 2009 or 2010 and he did not appear to know any details of the murder charge. He also appeared to say that he had not had any involvement with the court in Bangladesh, which was at odds with his evidence during his interview with the first delegate. The applicant said that he had been to court in Bangladesh and perhaps there had been a misunderstanding during the November 2020 interview.
I noted that according to a statement lodged in December 2020, Awami League supporters regularly harassed the applicant at his small business, demanding a regular payment and that he was kidnapped by a group of men when he refused. He was ill-treated but released after his father paid a significant ransom. He confirmed that this information was correct. I advised him that I had difficulty accepting this claim as it was not mentioned prior to December 2020 and it was at odds with his evidence earlier in the hearing that he had never owned a business in Bangladesh. He said that the business was his brother’s [shop]. He never worked there, but he used to help him and sometimes spent time at the shop. He said that he had not mentioned the kidnapping before 2020 because he forgot to do so.
I asked the applicant to tell me about the murder charges against his brother. He said that his brother had been charged with murder after he [the applicant] left the country. He spent two or three months in jail, but he was never convicted, apparently because evidence of his innocence had been provided. He also said that his brother had been released on bail, but the case was ongoing. I attempted to clarify the situation further, but the applicant said he did not know all of the details. When asked how the charges against his brother were relevant to his case, he said that they were brothers. He confirmed that his brother was now residing legally in [Country 1].
I noted that in the application lodged in June 2016 the applicant had said that before leaving Bangladesh he had moved to his grandfather’s house. He said that his grandfather’s house was about four kilometres from his home. He lived there for three or four months prior to his departure from Bangladesh. He travelled seven or eight hours to Chittagong shortly before leaving. I noted that this was at odds with his earlier evidence. He said that the people who wrote those claims had not understood him. I reminded him that he had told me at the beginning of the hearing that he had been alone in Chittagong for six or seven months before he left Bangladesh. He said that he was confused and suggested that I send people to his village in Bangladesh to confirm his claims. I advised him that this would not be possible.
As noted above, in December 2020 the applicant’s representative provided the names of three BNP members in Bangladesh and asked that they be contacted to confirm the applicant’s claims. This request was not repeated in the applicant’s submissions to the Tribunal. At the hearing I asked the applicant for more information about these men. He said that two of them were his neighbours who he called uncle and the third was his uncle. The neighbours were both in jail. I observed that it was clearly not possible to contact men who were in jail and there appeared to be limited value in calling the third who was a close relative. The applicant made no comment.
I noted that the applicant had provided a letter from the BNP in [Upazila 1] dated [in] October 2011, which was prior to his departure from Bangladesh. I asked him why he obtained the letter at that time. He said that after he arrived in Australia, the Department told him that he should provide documents and the document was emailed to him from Bangladesh. He did not know why it was dated October 2011.
I noted that the document which states that there were 51 members of the full committee of the applicant’s branch of the BNP in Bangladesh and appeared to name him was dated [in] September 2011, which was prior to his departure. I also noted that he had provided a First Information Report relating to an incident in December 2012 and charge sheet dated [in] June 2013. I asked if he could provide any more information about these documents. He said that he could not remember. I asked if the charge sheet related to the murder charge against him. He said that he could not remember anything.
I asked the applicant how he left Bangladesh. He said that he left from Chittagong by boat. I advised him that I was aware that people sometimes left countries illegally. However, I had concerns about the claim that he left Bangladesh because he was facing problems and if I concluded that he had not been forced to flee then there appeared to be no reason why he could not have obtained a passport and left legally, which would no doubt have been cheaper and less risky. He said that it was not possible to go to Australia legally. I observed that this related to entry to Australia not departure from Bangladesh and noted that his brother appeared to have been able to obtain a passport and leave legally despite facing a murder charge. The applicant said that he had never held a passport.
I noted that the applicant appeared to have a number of Bangladeshi identity documents and the evidence I had seen indicated that he would therefore be able obtain a passport from the Bangladeshi Consulate in Australia. He confirmed that he had identity documents but said that he had never tried to obtain a passport while in Australia and he did not want to go back to Bangladesh.
I noted that the applicant had claimed that he could not return to Bangladesh in part because he had left illegally, lived in Australia and applied for protection. I asked who he feared would harm him for these reasons. He said that there could be problems and he would be jailed. When asked for more information he said that the whole country was corrupt, and he would face problems. I advised him that advice from DFAT indicated that while people who left the country illegally might face some problems, these problems were unlikely to amount to serious harm. He said that his safety could not be guaranteed. I advised him that I was not aware of any evidence which suggested that people who had lived in Australia would face problems because of this. He said that his situation was different from others but added that he feared harm for other reasons, not because of the time he had spent in Australia.
I observed that as the applicant had pointed out there was a lot of corruption in Bangladesh, and it was my understanding that it was relatively easy to obtain documents by fraudulent means. He confirmed that this was correct. I observed that this suggested that the documents he had provided could be fraudulent or had been obtained by fraudulent means and if I concluded that his claims were not credible, I might conclude that the documents were not genuine. He said that he would not have come to Australia if he was not afraid.
I asked the applicant if he had been involved in any activities in Australia which he feared could cause him problems if he returned to Bangladesh. He said that if he returned to Bangladesh people would think he was wealthy and might kidnap him for ransom. In addition, the police would arrest him because he had been charged with murder and he would face problems for political reasons.
I asked again if he had done anything in Australia that would cause him problems if he returned to Bangladesh. He said that he had worked in [industry] while living in Australia and people in his local area would know and they would believe he was wealthy.

100. I asked again if he had done anything in Australia which might cause him problems in Bangladesh. He said that he had been involved in the BNP in Australia and that might cause problems with opposing parties. He said that he had attended BNP activities after he arrived in Sydney in 2013. He was an ordinary member and did not hold a position. He said that the BNP in Australia did not hold many activities, then added that he had attended rallies and meetings. When asked for details of these activities he said that he had attended meetings which were held every two or three months and the last meeting he attended was in front of the Australian High Commission. I noted that there was no Australian High Commission in Australia and asked if he meant the Bangladeshi High Commission. He said the meeting was held outside Parliament House in Canberra to protest about the injustices of the Bangladeshi government. He could not recall the date but said it had occurred about six weeks earlier. His description of the protest was confused. He said that between 60 and 100 people were involved and suggested both that it was a BNP protest against the government but that the issue of visas in Australia was also raised.
101. I advised the applicant that if I decided that his evidence regarding his involvement with the BNP prior to his arrival in Australia lacked credibility I might conclude that he had joined the party in Australia to support his application rather than out of a genuine commitment to the party. He maintained that he was a genuine member of the BNP and offered to show me text messages from the [office bearer] of the party in Australia on his mobile phone. I advised him that I accepted that he had attended some BNP meetings in Australia and advised him to provide any evidence he wanted me to consider in writing.
102. I noted that the applicant had stated that the BNP did not hold many activities in Australia and advised him that in my view it was unlikely that he would face problems on return to Bangladesh because of his involvement with the party in Australia. Furthermore, if I concluded that he had not been involved in the BNP in Bangladesh and had only joined the party in Australia to support his application then I was likely to conclude that he would not become involved with the BNP if he returned to Bangladesh. The applicant said that anyone with any association with the BNP was at risk of serious harm such as being shot or jailed. I advised him that I was aware of the repression of BNP leaders and others in recent years. However, I understood that the party continued to exist and operate to some degree and it was not my understanding that every member of the group faced death or jail and in any event it appeared unlikely that he would be involved with BNP on his return and therefore unlikely that he would face problems for that reason. He maintained that his claims were true.
103. I advised the applicant that I had asked all the questions I wanted to and that the hearing would have to end because the office was about to close. However, if he wished to provide any additional written evidence or attend a further hearing to provide oral evidence, I would be happy to make the appropriate arrangements. I suggested that he consult his representative and let me know by the end of the following week if he wanted the opportunity to provide more evidence.
Post hearing developments
104. Finalisation of the applicant’s case was delayed as I was waiting for clarification of new advice received regarding the validity of his applications. As noted above, it is now clear that while the application lodged in 2016 is valid, the application lodged in 2020 is not. The applicant was invited to a second hearing in order to provide him with an opportunity to comment on this issue. I advised him that while it was my view that only one of his applications was valid, I would be considering all of the evidence which he had provided in support of both applications. The applicant did not wish to comment and his representative stated that he had no submissions to make.
105. Prior to the second hearing the applicant indicated that he wanted evidence to be taken from [Mr F] regarding his involvement in activities in Australia.
106. At the hearing the applicant said that he was not able to provide photographs of his attendance at events in Australia because this could cause problems in Bangladesh. I noted that he had provided some photographs which appeared to show he attended meetings in Australia. I also advised him that I was aware that applicants were not always able to provide photographs and that I would consider any relevant evidence regarding his activities.
107. I reminded the applicant that he had previously claimed that he had attended a protest against the government of Bangladesh held outside Parliament House in Canberra. I advised him that I had been unable to locate any information regarding protests against the Bangladeshi government at Parliament House, but it appears that rallies which included protests by Bangladeshi refugees and asylum seekers relating to access to visas had been held in all capital cities including Canberra on Palm Sunday.[3] The applicant confirmed that this was the event he had attended. I observed that it appeared to be a protest against the Australian government’s policies, not a protest against the government of Bangladesh. The applicant said that his friends had told him it was a BNP rally. He said that he had never attended a rally against the interests of the Australia government during the 10 years he was in Australia. I observed that it appeared unlikely that involvement in the Palm Sunday protest would be of concern to the authorities in Bangladesh. The applicant did not comment. Later in the hearing his representative submitted that his presence at the rally for refugee rights in Canberra demonstrated that he was politically active and prepared to stand up for his rights and that his involvement in these and other activities in Australia suggested that he would be politically active on return to Bangladesh.
[3] Palm Sunday Rally: Refugees – Permanent Visas for ALL | Facebook
108. I observed that there appeared to be a number of groups in Australia claiming to represent the BNP and asked which ones the applicant had been involved with. He said that there were two groups, but he had only been involved in the Australian BNP and did not know what the other group did. [Mr F] was the [office bearer] of the Jubo Dal which was the youth wing of that group.
109. I asked the applicant what evidence he wanted me to take from [Mr F]. He said that I could ask him anything. I observed that I already had the evidence which he (the applicant) had provided regarding his involvement with the BNP in Australia and letters of support from other BNP members in Australia. I noted that at the previous hearing he had told me that he had never held a position in the BNP in Australia, that the BNP was not very active, that he had attended meetings every two or three months and that the only rally he had attended was the one outside Parliament House in Canberra. He confirmed that this was correct and added that it was difficult to obtain a position with the BNP in Australia.
110. I advised the applicant that I accepted the claims he had made at the hearing regarding his involvement with the BNP in Australia, but I had concerns about his reasons for joining the group. I advised him that if I concluded that he had not been involved with the BNP in Bangladesh, I might conclude that he had joined the party in Australia to bolster his claim for protection and I might also conclude that he would not become politically active if he returned to Bangladesh. The applicant said that this was not correct.
111. I observed that if the only evidence which [Mr F] could provide was confirmation of the applicant’s claims regarding his activities in Australia, it appeared that it was not necessary to take his evidence because I accepted his evidence regarding this. I asked if he still wanted me to take [Mr F]’s evidence. Both the applicant and his representative said that they no longer wanted me to take evidence from [Mr F].
112. I advised the applicant that in my view the evidence on the situation in Bangladesh did not suggest that he would be of interest to the authorities in Bangladesh solely as a result of his limited involvement with the BNP in Australia. The applicant said that he had evidence on his mobile phone which confirmed that all of his friends from the BNP in Bangladesh had been arrested. He offered to show me the evidence. I declined the offer to examine evidence on his phone and advised him that any evidence would need to be provided in a more appropriate format. I suggested that he discuss the evidence with his representative and told him that that he should provide any further evidence by close of business on Tuesday 1 August 2023. No evidence or submissions have been received.
FINDINGS OF FACT
113. After considering all of the relevant evidence, I find that the applicant is not a reliable witness and that many of his claims lack credibility.
Involvement with the BNP
114. I found the applicant’s evidence regarding his involvement with the BNP in Bangladesh confused, sometimes contradictory and generally unpersuasive.
115. When interviewed in April 2013 the applicant said that he had not been involved with any political party in Bangladesh. He later claimed that he failed to mention his political activities during that interview because he had been advised by other asylum seekers with whom he had travelled to Australia not to mention politics and because he was afraid. I find it highly unlikely that someone who had fled their homeland because of political problems and come to Australia to seek protection would be afraid to mention their involvement in politics when they first arrived in Australia. I also find it highly unlikely that other asylum seekers would have advised the applicant not to mention his involvement with politics. I also note that after initially stating that he had not been involved in politics, the applicant changed his evidence and said that he had been involved with the BNP on a number of occasions.

116. Despite these problems, I might have been prepared to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accept that he had some involvement with the BNP in Bangladesh if these had been the only problems with his evidence. However, as discussed below, this is not the case. Considered in the context of all the relevant evidence, I find his failure to state clearly and consistently that he had been an active member of the BNP in Bangladesh during the April 2013 interview a strong indication that this claim is not true.
117. In later submissions the applicant said that he had been involved with the BNP from the time he left school until his departure from Bangladesh. He said that he had participated in meetings and rallies. When the delegates asked for details, he spoke in general and often confused terms about attending rallies and meetings. When asked about his position in the party he stated or suggested at different times that he was an ordinary member, that he had been a member of a committee, that he had been a [Position 2], that he had been the [Position 6] for his constituency and that he was a lower-level [Position 7]. He also claimed at different times that he had attended committee meetings of about 15 to 20 people every fortnight or month and that he had attended meetings of between one and two hundred people between once a month and once every three months.
118. When asked to comment on these apparent differences at the hearing the applicant said that he had been misunderstood or had forgotten. I acknowledge that it now over 10 years since the applicant left Bangladesh and that it is not uncommon for applicants to provide differing accounts when questioned about past events. However, I find it unlikely that he would have been unable to provide a reasonably coherent and convincing account of his involvement with the BNP, in particular regarding any formal positions he held within the party. I find his failure to do so a further indication that he has not provided an honest or accurate account of his involvement with the party.
119. More significantly, the applicant’s evidence regarding the problems he faced because of his involvement with the BNP was confused, contradictory and generally unconvincing.
120. When interviewed in April 2013 the applicant said that he had not been threatened or experienced any problems related to political violence or faced problems with the authorities in Bangladesh. During the hearing he said that he had not mentioned being attacked by Awami League members during that interview because he was afraid and because he sometimes forgot things. I find it highly unlikely that someone who fled his homeland and travelled to Australia to seek protection would have been afraid to mention these claims on arrival and even less likely that he would have forgotten all of the serious problems he later claimed to have faced. I believe he failed to mention the problems which he later claimed to have faced in Bangladesh because they did not occur.
121. In addition, even if I were to ignore the applicant’s failure to mention the problems he faced in Bangladesh during the April 2013 interview, there are other significant issues with his evidence regarding these problems.
122. In the application lodged in June 2016 the applicant said that he had been harassed and threatened by local Awami League members who tried to kill him several times. During interview in November 2020, he said that Awami League members began to kill people in his village after December 2008 and claimed that he had been threatened and abused innumerable times. However, despite having ample opportunity to provide details of these problems, no evidence of attempts to kill him were provided and the only specific examples of harassment or threats prior to December 2012 provided were the incidents in 2009 and 2010 mentioned during his July 2017 interview. Even if I accept that his account of these incidents at face value, they appear to have involved nothing more than minor harassment. If the applicant had faced repeated threats or been seriously harassed by members of the Awami League prior to December 2012, I believe he would have provided a reasonably detailed account of these problems. I do not accept that he was repeatedly abused or threatened between the time the Awami League came to power in December 2008 and December 2012. As discussed below, I also find his claims relating to the events of December 2012 lack credibility.
123. During the July 2017 interview the applicant claimed that he had been injured during a clash with Awami League members in 2012. There is no mention of this specific incident in the 2016 statement. I acknowledge that the statement was relatively brief and states that his opponents had attempted to kill him at some time. Nevertheless, I find it unlikely that an incident of such seriousness would not have been mentioned in this statement, particularly given that it was prepared with the assistance of a registered migration agent. I also note that the applicant gave differing accounts of the incident in July 2017 and November 2020. In July 2017 he said that he was not arrested during the clash because he ran away. In November 2020 he said that he had been badly beaten and left unconscious and hospitalised. He also claimed for the first time that there were two clashes in December 2012. I find these problems a strong indication that the applicant’s claims regarding being attacked and injured during a clash in 2012 are not true.
124. During his interview with the delegate in July 2017 the applicant claimed for the first time that he had been falsely accused of murder following the December 2012 clash. This is at odds with the information provided in the application lodged in June 2016 which states that he had never been charged with any offence and there is nothing in the statement of claims provided with his 2016 application which suggests otherwise. If the applicant had been falsely charged with murder in 2012, I believe this would have been mentioned in his 2016 statement of claims. I note that his application was prepared with the assistance of a registered migration agent. I do not accept that a statement prepared with this assistance would have completely failed to mention a claim which is central to his case. I find this a further strong indication that his claims regarding the events of December 2012 and the murder charge he claims to face are not true.
125. During his interview with the delegate in 2020 he claimed that Awami League members or police came to his village and threatened to bulldoze his home at some time. He appears to have initially claimed it occurred prior to his departure from Bangladesh and involved Awami League members seeking to harm him, but later suggested that it occurred after he left Bangladesh and involved police who were looking for his brother. Despite having ample opportunity to do so, the applicant did not mention these claims when asked about his problems or his brother’s situation during the hearing.
126. In addition to these problems, the applicant has given differing accounts of his involvement in court proceedings in Bangladesh. During the 2017 interview he said that he had surrendered to the court in December 2012 after which he was placed on reporting conditions and that he had attended court on a number of occasions. In November 2020 he said that he knew almost nothing about the murder charge and had never been to court. At the hearing he said that he had attended court and he had been misunderstood during the November 2020 interview. I do not accept this explanation. If he had attended court on several occasions as claimed in 2017, I believe he would have had some knowledge of the case and would not have told the second delegate he had almost no knowledge of the charges. In addition, he told the delegate in 2020 that he had not been to court in Bangladesh but feared he would be required to attend if he returned. In my view this indicates that he understood the questions he was asked and made a considered response. I believe he gave a different account of events in 2020 because his claims were false, and he had forgotten his earlier evidence.
127. The applicant has provided differing accounts of his whereabouts during his final months in Bangladesh. According to his 2016 application he remained in his home village until February 2013 and moved to his grandfather’s house to avoid problems at some time prior to leaving Bangladesh. During his interview with the second delegate in 2020 he said that he had resided in the same area until a few months before leaving Bangladesh when he moved to his grandparents’ house in Chittagong. At the beginning of the hearing in November 2020, he said that he had moved to Chittagong about six or seven months before he left Bangladesh and lived there alone. Later in the hearing he said that he had moved to his grandparents’ house which was located about four kilometres from his home and remained there until shortly before he left the country. I noted that this was at odds with his earlier evidence. He said that the people who recorded his claims had misunderstood him. When I noted that he had provided a different account at the beginning of the hearing, he said that he had been confused. While I acknowledge the difficulties faced by applicants in general and this applicant in particular, I do not accept that the significant differences in his evidence regarding where he resided in the months before he left Bangladesh can be explained in this way. I believe that he provided contradictory accounts of this period because he was not telling the truth.
128. After considering all of the relevant evidence, I find that the applicant is not a credible witness. I do not accept that he was a member or active supporter of the BNP prior to his departure from Bangladesh or that he was harassed or threatened or harmed in any way by members of the Awami League or anyone else in Bangladesh because of his involvement in politics or that he was falsely charged with murder prior to his departure. Nor do I accept that members of his family have been questioned about him or threatened or harassed in any way before or after his departure from Bangladesh because of his involvement in politics. I believe that he manufactured these claims in order to claim protection in Australia.
129. In addition, I find the applicant’s claims regarding his family’s involvement with the BNP lack credibility. During the 2013 interview he said that nobody in his family was involved in politics. In later submissions he claimed that his father had played a leading role in the BNP in the past, that all members of his family supported the BNP. In light of applicant’s failure to mention this when first questioned about his family’s involvement in politics and my findings about the credibility of his claims regarding his own involvement, I do not accept these claims. I have also noted the applicant’s claims that one of his uncles was a former MP and that other relatives also held positions within the party. It is possible that members of the applicant’s extended family had some involvement in politics. However, given the many problems with his evidence I do not accept that he worked for any of them in the political sphere. There is no credible evidence before me which suggests that he faced problems prior to leaving Bangladesh because members of his family were involved with the BNP.
130. In reaching these conclusions, I acknowledge that some of the issues set out above are relatively minor and could be the result of the confusion which often occurs when applicants are asked to recount their claims several times over a prolonged period of time. I also acknowledge that the long delay in finalising the applicant’s case has caused him distress which may also have contributed to some of the problems with his evidence. Considered in isolation minor issues would not have caused me to reject his claims entirely. However, many of the issues set out above are significant and the overall pattern of his evidence leads me to conclude that he is not a reliable witness and his evidence is not credible.
131. I have also considered the documents provided by the applicant which purport to confirm that he was involved with the BNP in Bangladesh. The receipts and statements from BNP officials in Bangladesh were all dated 2011, prior to his arrival in Australia and the first information sheet does not appear to relate to a murder charge. When asked why he had obtained and provided documents dated in 2011, the applicant said that he had obtained them after being advised that he should obtain evidence to support his claims and he did not know why they were dated 2011. When asked for more information about the first information sheet and the charge sheet, he said that he knew nothing about them and could not remember whether they related to the murder charge he claimed to face.
132. It is not surprising or indicative of fraud that the applicant would seek supporting evidence from Bangladesh after arriving in Australia when advised to do so. However, as pointed out at the hearing, advice from DFAT indicates that it is not difficult to obtain fraudulent documents in Bangladesh. I also note that the documents which the applicant has provided could have been manufactured by anyone with a computer. In these circumstances and in light of my findings regarding the credibility of the applicant’s claims, his inability to explain why the letters from the BNP were dated 2011 and his inability to provide any further information on the first information sheet and charge sheet, I do not accept that these documents are genuine. I believe that they were manufactured or obtained in a fraudulent manner at the applicant’s request.
133. I have also considered the applicant’s 2020 request to contact three people who he claims belonged to the BNP and could support his claims. This request was not repeated in the applicant’s submissions to the Tribunal. No identity documents or witness statements from these men have been provided. Furthermore, according to the applicant two of them are currently in jail and cannot be contacted. In my view contacting the remaining witness would not yield any worthwhile or reliable evidence and I have not done so.
Attempted extortion and kidnapping
134. In a submission dated December 2020 it was claimed for the first time that Awami League members extorted the applicant for money at his small business then kidnapped him when he refused to continue paying them. At the hearing the applicant said that he had never owned a business in Bangladesh. Later in the hearing I reminded him of the claim put forward in his representative’s submission. He said that the business referred to was his brother’s [shop]. He never worked there, but he sometimes spent time there.
135. I do not accept this claim. In the first place, if this had occurred, I am confident that it would have been mentioned in earlier submissions. Secondly, it is contrary to the information in the initial claim that the applicant has never owned a business in Bangladesh and it is not plausible that the applicant would have paid money to an extortionist who happened to come to his brother’s business while he was visiting.
136. Why this claim suddenly appeared for the first time in submissions made seven years after the applicant arrived in the country is unclear to me. I have considered the possibility that it is the result of a mistake when the submission was drafted. However, when asked at the hearing the applicant confirmed that he had been the victim of extortion and kidnapping in Bangladesh. It appears that he concocted this claim late in the day to bolster his case or that he confirmed that information mistakenly included in the December 2020 submission was true when asked about it at the hearing because he could not recall his previous claims. Either way, in my view this is further evidence of his willingness to provide false evidence in support of his claim for protection which does not reflect well on his overall credibility.
Illegal departure
137. The applicant claims that he fled Bangladesh illegally because of the problems he faced in Bangladesh. As discussed above, I do not accept that he was involved with the BNP or that he faced problems or charges of any kind because of his involvement with the BNP prior to his departure from Bangladesh. There is no credible evidence before me which suggests that the applicant would have been unable to obtain a passport. In my view it is not plausible that rather than obtain a passport and at least attempt to obtain a visa for [Country 1] or elsewhere in order to leave the country he paid a large some of money to a people smuggler to help him leave the country illegally. I believe he made this claim to support his case for protection in Australia. I am not satisfied that the applicant never possessed a Bangladeshi passport or that he departed Bangladesh illegally.
The applicant’s brother’s arrest
138. In July 2017 the applicant claimed for the first time that his older brother had been falsely charged with murder in about 2014 and had spent time in jail because he [the brother] had been involved with the BNP. I do not accept this claim.
139. In the first place, during his interview in April 2013 the applicant said that nobody in his family had been involved in politics. He claims that he failed to mention their political involvement during interview because he had been warned not to and he was afraid. As discussed above, I find this explanation implausible, and I do not accept it.
140. Secondly, the applicant’s evidence regarding the charges against his brother was confused and contradictory. In July 2017 he said that his brother been charged in about 2014 and had spent three years in jail, that he was released after a bribe was paid, that the case had not been finalised and that his brother reported regularly to the police. In November 2020 he said that his brother had been released on bail in 2018, but he was still facing murder charges. Nevertheless, he was able to obtain a passport and depart Bangladesh legally in 2018. At the hearing he said that his brother had spent two or three months in jail, but he was never convicted because evidence of his innocence had been provided. He also said that his brother had been released on bail, but the case was ongoing.
141. While I acknowledge that the applicant had left Bangladesh before his brother was allegedly arrested and that he may not be aware of all of the details of events which occurred in his absence, I cannot reconcile the claim that his brother spent about three years in jail with the later claim that he was jailed for only two or three months. And while I also acknowledge that there is a high level of corruption in Bangladesh, I find it highly unlikely that someone who was facing murder charges and required to report regularly to the police would have been able to obtain a passport and depart the country legally.
142. In these circumstances and in light of my findings relating to the credibility of other claims made by the applicant, I am not satisfied that his brother faced false murder charges or that he was jailed at some time because of his association with the BNP. I find this to be another attempt by the applicant to bolster his claim for protection.
143. As I do not accept that the applicant’s brother was charged with murder or spent time in prison prior to his departure for [Country 1] in 2018, it follows that I do not accept that the authorities visited his family home searching for his brother after he left the country or that his family was threatened at any time because his brother faced murder charges.
Involvement with the BNP in Australia
144. I accept that the applicant has attended some BNP activities in Australia. I am sceptical of the claim that he became involved with the BNP in Australia in 2014 or 2015 as suggested during the November 2020 interview and in some of the supporting letters provided. If he had been involved with the party in Australia from 2014 or 2015, I believe he would have mentioned these activities prior to the refusal of his application in July 2017. In any event, in light of my finding that he falsely claimed to have been an active member of the BNP in Bangladesh in order to remain in Australia and in the absence of evidence which suggests that he developed an interest in the party after arriving in Australia, I find that he participated in BNP activities in order to support his claim for protection, not out of a genuine commitment to the BNP.

145. I accept the applicant’s evidence at the hearing as a broadly accurate account of his involvement with the group in Australia. That is, I accept that he was an ordinary member of the party, that he attended meetings occasionally and that he attended one protest rally mainly related to Australia’s refugee policy. This description accords with his evidence during the November 2020 interview when he said that he participated in meetings but had not expressed any political opinions publicly or on any social media platforms. It is clear from this that the applicant’s involvement with the BNP in Australia was limited and low level.
146. In reaching this conclusion, I have considered the letters of support from BNP leaders in Australia. However, there is nothing in these letters which persuades me that the applicant was more than an occasional participant in low level BNP activities in Australia. I am extremely sceptical of the [Position 1]’s evidence that the applicant was a member of the executive committee of the party from at least 2017 until 2020 as this is at odds with the evidence provided by the applicant himself at hearing. In any event, if the applicant was listed as a member of the committee on party records, he was clearly unaware of it or had forgotten which suggests that it was essentially a meaningless role. With regard to the suggestion that he attended a number of public protest events or celebrations contained in these letters, it is possible that he attended one or two minor events which he forgot when providing oral evidence. However, I do not accept that he would have forgotten attending a number of significant protest activities. When the supporting letters appear to deviate from the evidence provided by the applicant himself, I prefer the applicant’s evidence and have given little weight to the letters.
147. In summary, I accept that the applicant participated in occasional low level BNP activities in an attempt to bolster his application for protection in Australia. I do not accept that he has a genuine interest in the party or that he would join the BNP. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that he would participate in any BNP activities if he returned to Bangladesh.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
148. As I do not accept that the applicant or any member of his family was involved with the BNP in Bangladesh, it follows that I do not accept that he would face problems of any kind on return to Bangladesh for these reasons. I am not satisfied that he faces a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh because of his or his family’s involvement with the BNP prior to his departure from Bangladesh.
149. As discussed above, I accept that the applicant has participated in occasional low level BNP activities in Australia. As discussed above, the BNP continues to be a legal opposition party in Bangladesh. According to DFAT, while some leading or active members of the BNP have faced significant problems in Bangladesh, low level participants are less likely to face problems, unless they participate in protests or demonstrations, many of which involve violence. In addition, according to DFAT, the Bangladeshi authorities are not interested in monitoring returning citizens and do not have the capacity to do so. In these circumstances, I am not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh because of his limited involvement with the BNP in Australia.
150. Finally, as discussed above, I find that the applicant participated in BNP activities in Australia primarily in order to bolster his claim for protection. I do not accept that he is a genuine or committed member of the party or that he has any intention or desire to participate in BNP activities on return to Bangladesh. It follows that I do not accept that he faces a real chance of suffering serious of significant harm on return to Bangladesh because of future involvement with the BNP.
151. After considering all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh for reasons of any involvement in or association with the BNP.
152. As discussed above, I am not satisfied that the applicant left Bangladesh illegally without a passport. It follows that I am not satisfied that he would be at risk of harm on return to Bangladesh because of the manner in which he left the country.
153. I am not satisfied that the applicant would be at risk of harm on return to Bangladesh because he has lived in Australia for 10 years and has applied for protection. While protection applications are confidential, it seems likely that the Bangladeshi authorities are aware that many Bangladeshis seek protection in countries such as Australia and it is plausible that they might suspect that the applicant applied for protection while in Australia. There is nothing in his background or the country information set out above which suggests that he is likely to come to the attention of the authorities for any reason if he returns to Bangladesh. As noted above, tens of thousands of Bangladeshis exit and enter the country each year and DFAT assesses that most returnees, including failed asylum seekers, are unlikely to face adverse attention regardless of whether they have returned voluntarily or involuntarily.
154. As discussed above, I do not accept that the applicant was the victim of an extortion attempt by the Awami League or anyone else. It follows that I do not accept that he would be at risk of serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh as a result of these alleged past problems.
155. Finally, I have considered the applicant’s claim that the environment is precarious in Bangladesh, that many people are targeted by the police or army and that he would be at risk of harm. It is certainly true that many Bangladeshis face a range of problems including problems related to low incomes, lack of access to welfare and other services, a high crime rate, widespread corruption and a police force which is often corrupt or ineffective. However, while these are significant problems which no doubt have some impact on the lives of many Bangladeshis, in my view the evidence does not suggest that Bangladeshis generally face a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm as defined in Australian law at the hands of the Bangladeshi police or armed forces. There is no credible evidence before me which suggests that the applicant experienced serious or significant harm from the police or armed forces or any other official or non-official group or individual prior to his departure from Bangladesh. Nor is there anything in his background or the country information which suggests that there is a real chance that he would come to the adverse attention of any of these groups if he returned to Bangladesh within the reasonably foreseeable future and suffer serious or significant harm as a result. I am not satisfied the applicant faces a real chance of suffering serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh as a result of the precarious situation in his homeland.
156. After considering the applicant’s claims singly and cumulatively, I am not satisfied that he faces a real chance of suffering serious harm amounting to persecution for any of the reasons in s 5J(1), if he returns to Bangladesh now or within the reasonably foreseeable future. I am therefore not satisfied that he has a well-founded fear of persecution.
157. The applicant’s claims for complementary protection are the same as those put forward in relation to his refugee claims. After considering all of these claims both individually and cumulatively I am not satisfied that he faces a real risk of experiencing significant harm if he returns to Bangladesh. Therefore, I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Bangladesh, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm.
CONCLUSIONS
158. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).

Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy any of the criteria in s 36(2).
DECISION

161. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Roslyn Smidt
Member

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…

cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…

receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…

5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…

5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.

5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;

where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.

5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and

(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.

5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and

(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…

36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or

(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.

(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a) the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b) the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or

(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2023] AATA 3710

21 August 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction