1907885 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Bangladesh, sought a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution based on political opinion or membership in a particular social group, or alternatively, whether Australia had complementary protection obligations towards him. The decision was made by the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Additionally, the Tribunal was required to consider whether the applicant met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), which arises if there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Bangladesh, the applicant would be at real risk of suffering significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims that he was targeted by the Awami League due to his family's past support for the Bangladesh National Party (BNP). The applicant stated he was threatened and his home was damaged by the Awami League, leading him to leave his village for Dhaka. While he reported no incidents in Dhaka, he expressed a general fear of escalating political violence and corruption, particularly around elections, and felt he could not return to his village. The Tribunal applied established principles for assessing the credibility of asylum seekers, acknowledging the complexities arising from communication, mistrust, trauma, and stress, as outlined in cases such as *Sujeendran Sivalingam v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs* and *AVQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*. The Tribunal also had regard to the Refugee Law Guidelines and Complementary Protection Guidelines.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, indicating that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.