1909075 (Refugee)

1909075 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 2544 (24 May 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
REPRESENTATIVE:Mr Jia (Jack) Li
CASE NUMBER: 1909075

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Bangladesh
MEMBER:Tania Flood
DATE:24 May 2023
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 24 May 2023 at 1:26pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Bangladesh – Federal Court remittal – religion – Buddhist – land dispute – physical assault – attack on home – fear of kidnapping – credibility issues – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65, 91R, 91
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
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 Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Bangladesh, applied for the visa on 1 October 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 10 July 2015.
On 21 July 2015, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the refusal decision. A previous Tribunal, constituted differently, held a hearing on 13 October 2016. On 10 February 2017 the first Tribunal affirmed the refusal decision in Tribunal case 1509839.
[In] March 2017, the applicant commenced judicial review proceedings against the first Tribunal’s decision at the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. [In] February 2018, the application for judicial review was dismissed. [In] March 2018, the applicant filed application for review proceedings against the Federal Circuit Court of Australia’s decision at the Federal Court of Australia.
[In] April 2019, the Federal Court of Australia remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for determination. The Court found that due to mistranslations during the hearing with the first Tribunal the applicant did not have a fair opportunity to advance his claims as matters of importance were not accurately conveyed to him and his answers on important issues were also not conveyed to the first Tribunal member. The Court found that these inaccuracies were causative of adverse credibility findings. The Court found that when all of the mistranslations were taken together it was more than possible, and even approaching probable, that the first Tribunal perceived the applicant in a way which it would not have had the translations been accurate.
The matter is now before the present Tribunal pursuant to an order of the Court.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 May 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.
RELEVANT LAW
The criteria for a Protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant 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.
Refugee criterion
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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.
There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.
Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s 91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s 91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s 91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s 91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.
Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.
Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s 91R(1)(a) of the Act.
Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.
In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.
Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary protection criterion
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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).
‘Significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A): s 5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s 5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s 36(2B) of the Act.
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 expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
The applicant’s background
The following information was provided by the applicant in his application for a Protection visa.
The applicant is from the Chittagong province. He is a proficient speaker, reader, and writer in Bengali and in English. He stated he spoke Arabic, Hindi and Urdu. He is of the Barua Buddhist ethnicity and identifies with the Buddhist faith. He is married and has a daughter who was born in [year]. He first arrived in Australia [in] September 2014. Prior to coming to Australia, he visited [specified countries]. His parents are deceased, and his sister resides in Bangladesh. He withdrew from a [named] course in Bangladesh.
The applicant’s claims
In a statutory declaration dated 1 October 2014 provided to the Department as part of his Protection visa application, the applicant claimed that if he returned to Bangladesh he would be killed by [Mr A] who is claimed to have an interest in the land that is legally owned by the applicant.
The applicant states that he is a Buddhist and that his village is within [distance] of the Chittagong Hill Tracts.
He states that his father used to work in [specified agency] in [specified countries]. His only uncle, [Uncle B] was [an Occupation 1] and used to work as a [manager] for [Company 1]. His family were middle class and known for their charity work in the region.
Due to his father’s medical condition and the cost of treatment he dropped out of university [in] 1999. In 2003 he began working at [Employer 1] as a [Occupation 2].
His father passed away in 2010 and his mother in 2012.
His father and [Uncle B] were the major donors to [a] Buddhist Temple in Chittagong City.
Almost a decade ago, his father donated land to [Orphanage 1] and [Orphanage 2]. However, the land had not been transferred and registered in the orphanages name. In January 2013 while he was in [Country 1], the principal of the orphanage called him and requested him to settle the matter and complete the registration process as they wanted to set up a new building on that land.
The applicant claimed that [in] February 2013 he travelled from [Country 1] to Bangladesh because the director of the orphanage called the applicant to inform him that a land survey was to be conducted. He states that the principle of the orphanage told the owners of the surrounding properties that a surveyor would be there to measure the land. The surrounding owners were all Muslims.
On [a day in] February 2013 while the applicant’s land survey was being conducted, an altercation broke out mainly provoked by one of the neighbours, [Mr A] and his group. The incident turned violent and the surveyor abandoned the task. The applicant was injured when [Mr A]’s son threw a bamboo stick at him hitting him in the [Body part 1]. The cut was deep and he had to go to a doctor for stitches.
[The next day], the applicant filed a complaint against [Mr A] at the police station. Three days later, [Mr A] caused damage to the orphanage. A week later the applicant’s house was ransacked by [Mr A] while he was away. The applicant returned to [Country 1] [in] March 2013.
While he was in [Country 1] he worried about his wife and daughter’s safety so he organised for them to stay with his sister in Chittagong City.
In September 2013, the applicant returned to Bangladesh because his daughter needed medical attention. He did not visit the village and returned to [Country 1] two weeks later.
[In] January 2014, the applicant returned to Bangladesh to organise a memorial service for his deceased father and was shocked to see that his house had been destroyed. The applicant claimed that his neighbours told him that [Mr A] was responsible. He went to their temple to talk to the [head monk] about the memorial service and the donated land and was told that the police tried to take some action against [Mr A] but somehow they managed to escape punishment. Instead they attacked the orphanage and chopped down the trees.
At the same time [Mr A]’s people came to know that he had returned to the village and within three days of his arrival in the village a group of local Muslim hooligans came to his house and demanded 500,000 taka. They threatened that if he did not pay they would kidnap his daughter. The following morning he returned to Chittagong City and he left Bangladesh [in] February 2014 for the last time.
In July 2014, the applicant travelled to [Europe], where he intended to seek asylum while holidaymaking but because the tour leader retained his passport the applicant could not succeed in his idea.
Evidence before the Department
The Department file contained the following documents relevant to the applicant’s claims:
a.Copy of Visitor visa grant to the applicant dated 18 August 2014;
b.Copy of Visitor visa application dated 11 August 2014;
c.Copy of the applicant’s foreign passport;
d.Copy of letter from [Employer 1] dated 6 August 2014 supporting the applicant’s application for an Australian Visitor visa;
e.Copy of bank statement for the applicant;
f.Copy of [Country 1] ID card for the applicant;
g.Copy of application form for a Protection visa dated 30 September 2014;
h.An uncertified English translation of a death certificate dated [in] February 201[illegible] in the name of [name], stating that [name] died on [date] February 2012;
i.An uncertified English translation of a death certificate dated 2 May 2010 in the name of [name] stating a [name] died on [date] April 2010;
j.An uncertified English translation of a certificate of marriage dated [in] October 2014 in the names of [the applicant] and [his wife];
k.An uncertified English translation of a letter from [name], Temple Principle/President [of Temple 1] dated [in] September 2014. The signatory states that the applicant suffered physical abuse and sustained injuries on his [Body part 2];
l.An uncertified English translation of a medical report dated [in] February 2013 bearing the name [of the applicant]. The report’s contents are largely illegible;
m.An uncertified English translation of a First Information Report (FIR) dated [in] February 2013 lodged by [the applicant]. It states that on [the previous day in] February 2013 he and a surveyor had gone to survey a land area with a view to seeking registration of the land in the name of [Orphanage 1]. It states that [Mr A] forcefully stopped them from surveying the land and insulted the principal of the orphanage. It states that an associate of [Mr A] threw a bamboo crutch directly at the [applicant] injuring his [Body part 1] and causing it to bleed;
n.An uncertified English translation of a letter dated [in] September 2020 from the Temple Principle/President [sic], [Temple 2] (Buddhist Temple) which states that he fixed the date of [date] February 2013 to attend the Registry Office with the applicant. It attests that [the applicant] was attacked and injured on their way to the Registry Office on [date] February 2013 in the middle of the road on one side of the land by [Mr A] and some of his local followers. [The applicant] was seriously wounded on his [Body part 2] and body for which he had to be admitted for medical attention; and
o.An uncertified English translation of a medical report dated 22 February 2013 certifying that [the applicant] was under medical treatment for the period [during] February 2014 for injury to the [Body part 3].
The Protection visa interview
The Department held an interview with the applicant on 6 July 2015. The applicant’s migration agent was also present at the interview.
The applicant reiterated his claims at the interview. Additionally, the Department officer and the applicant discussed in detail some claims the applicant included in his statutory declaration.
Regarding the land dispute
The applicant stated that his father donated land to the orphanage in about 2008 or 2009. The applicant was aware of the donation. After his father’s death he became the heir to his father’s property including the land his father donated to the orphanage.
The applicant was asked why he waited three years to finalise the land transfer to the orphanage, between 2010 when the applicant claimed his father died and 2013 when he attempted to get his land surveyed. The applicant stated that he did not place such importance on the land registration matter. However, the orphanage director rang the applicant on 30 January 2013 to ask that the matter be finalised and that is when the applicant attended to it.
The applicant claimed that the land was at the time of the interview occupied by a [Mr A] and the orphanage. The applicant claimed that [Mr A] was using the land for agricultural purposes. When asked, the applicant stated that [Mr A] controlled less than half of the applicant’s land.
The applicant claimed that the orphanage wanted to build bedrooms. Because of the altercation with [Mr A] the applicant could not finalise the land transfer to the orphanage.
The applicant was asked whether he attempted to get the land surveyed again with police assistance to complete the measurements. The applicant answered that he had lost the case with the police about the incident and there was no police response. The applicant stated that [Mr A] and his people kept an eye on the applicant in case he went to police. However, the applicant still attended the police station on a few occasions with a lot of caution. The applicant confirmed that he went to the police originally when he was attacked by [Mr A] then a few times after that but the police never did anything.

The applicant stated that he relocated his wife and daughter to Chittagong before he left Bangladesh to return to [Country 1] in early March 2013.
The applicant stated that there were two orphanages running from the donations of his father. The applicant added that he was unsure who currently occupied this land, and if he wanted to sell this land, he would have to return to Bangladesh. Noting that if he returned, he would surely be killed. He indicated that if he returned home he would try to reoccupy the land.
His trip to [Country 2] in 2014 also included a visit to [Country 3]. When he made the trip he did not have a plan to seek asylum anywhere.
Regarding the applicant’s claim that his house was ransacked
The applicant was asked where he was when his house was ransacked in February 2013. He answered that he was in [Country 1]. Upon further questioning the applicant said that it was in December 2012.
The applicant was then asked about his claim that he and his brother-in-law attended the police station the day after [date] February 2013 to report [Mr A]’s assault on the applicant; about [Mr A]’s attack on the orphanage within a week of this and his attack on the applicant’s house later. The applicant agreed to this timeline. The applicant stated that they attended his house looking for him and his wife, that according to his statement of claim this would have happened towards the end of February. The applicant was asked about the inconsistency of the dates when his house was ransacked: December 2012 and February 2013. The applicant claimed then that there were a few occasions where he was harassed. He said that his house was ransacked twice.
The applicant clarified that in December 2012 these people attended his house, looking for him and abusing him verbally. He said that in 2013, the harassment was at a larger scale because his parents were not alive. The applicant was asked why he did not mention the 2012 event in his statutory declaration. He answered that the 2012 incident was a smaller incident.
The applicant was asked again about his whereabouts in February 2013 when his house was ransacked. The applicant answered that he was with his sister in Chittagong at that time.
Regarding the applicant’s claim of having travelled to Europe
The applicant was asked about his reason for travelling to [Country 2]. The applicant answered that he used to work for [Employer 1] and so he and his friends (some of them colleagues) decided to travel to Europe. The applicant confirmed that he also travelled to [Country 3] on that same occasion he went to [Country 2].
The applicant was asked why he decided to travel to Europe instead of seeing his family in Bangladesh. The applicant answered that he was feeling down because of the series of events back home so he decided to go to Europe. The applicant clarified that he travelled to [Country 2] in July 2014, after the demand for money was made in Bangladesh in January 2014.
The applicant was asked about his claim that he was unable to seek asylum in [Country 2]. He said that he did not have clarity of mind then and simply travelled with his friends/colleagues. The applicant was asked whether he sought asylum in [Country 2]. He said that he did not have time to seek asylum in [Country 2]. That he returned to Bangladesh where the harassment continued and he then decided to come to Australia.
The officer asked the applicant about his written claim of not being able to get away from the tour group because his passport was retained. The applicant answered that other people said to him that because he was in danger he could do something but he could not break away from the group so did not seek asylum in [Country 2]. The officer put to the applicant that because he did not seek asylum in [Country 2] he did not hold genuine fears of harm noting that he returned to Bangladesh. The applicant replied that he went to [Country 2] to have a holiday only and because his wife insisted on him doing that. However, the harassment continued at home.
The applicant was asked whether his family had been the subject of threats or harm or harassment while living at the applicant’s sister’s home. The applicant replied that they lived in the city and not in the village so they did not fear harm. The applicant was asked why he could not relocate to the city like his family, or to Dhaka or another large city in Bangladesh. The applicant replied that his family did not leave the house at all but that he would need to leave the house and then these people would find out about it and would try to harm him. He said that he did not have enough money to live in Dhaka and that if he returned to Bangladesh he would not be able to occupy his land unless he faced the risk of being killed.
Additional claims
Towards the end of the interview, the applicant emphasised the risk of returning to Bangladesh, as he was a Buddhist and a member of a minority group. He stated that there are no safeguards for Buddhists.
Evidence before the First Tribunal
The present Tribunal has before it the first Tribunal file which contains:
a.copy of the applicant’s application form for review of the delegate’s refusal dated 27 July 2015;
b.copy of the delegate’s decision record;
c.copy of letter from the former Member of Parliament Mr Anthony Albanese in support of the applicant’s case and written evidence before the First Tribunal dated [in] February 2016;
d.copy of the applicant’s Visitor visa application dated 11 August 2014;
e.copy of divorce affidavit between the applicant and [his wife] dated [in] March 2016;
f.copy of partial access of release of information to the applicant under Freedom of Information Act from the Tribunal from 5 October 2021; and
g.copies of judicial review proceedings at the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia.
The present proceedings
The present Tribunal contains a copy of the statement of reasons of the first Tribunal pertaining to the hearing proceedings that the applicant attended on 13 October 2016.
Prior to the hearing set down for 17 May 2023 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and advised him that due to the many problems identified by the Federal Court with the standard of interpreting in the former proceedings it would not be relying on any records of his prior oral evidence. The Tribunal requested the applicant outline in writing his claims in full including any claims or information he may have given orally to the first Tribunal which he considers important to the review.
On 11 May 2023, the Tribunal received the following material in support of the applicant’s case.
a.Collection of photographs of a family house;
b.Collection of photographs depicting the applicant at different temple activities in Australia dated 2016 and 2017;
c.Collection of photographs depicting the applicant with religious figures and at religious activities overseas dated 2002;
d.Non-certified English translation of a letter dated 25 July 2018 from the applicant to [name], Chittagong [Official 1]. In the letter the applicant is requesting the assistance of [Minister C] to re-take possession of his land in [Town 1]. The letter states that the applicant acquired the land and that he previously had the land surveyed on [date] January 2012. The land was surveyed three times and the applicant undertook to fence it and landscape it. The letter states that in 2018 the applicant received news of land squatters in his land. His sister attended the land to speak with the squatters and to ask them to vacate the land. The letter states that the previous owner sought to retain possession of the land that the applicant had purchased and that thugs threatened the applicant in efforts to evict him from his own land;
e.Non-certified English translation of a letter dated [in] July 2018 from the applicant to the [Official 2]. The letter states that the applicant purchased a piece of land in [Town 1]. That [in] January 2012 the applicant had the land surveyed as part of land registration and fenced up the land. The letter states that the land had been surveyed three times by an agent [named]. The applicant undertook to landscape the land and instructed his sister to look after the land. The letter states that in 2018, the applicant received news that the previous owner was seeking to take possession of the plot of land and that they had taken the fence and trees down. The applicant’s sister attended the land to speak with the squatters and to ask them to vacate the land but the squatters threatened the applicant’s sister instead. The letter states that the applicant resides in Australia, where he has been living for a long time, and is therefore requesting the assistance of [Minister C] to re-take possession of his land in [Town 1];
f.Non-certified English translation of a letter dated [in] July 2018 from the applicant to [Minister D]. The letter contents are the same as the contents of the letter addressed to the [Official 2] above;
g.The three letters above were accompanied by nine black and white untranslated documents;
h.Letter from [name] dated 1 May 2023 (with [Temple 3] letterhead). The letter signatory claims to be the applicant’s [uncle]. [Uncle B] states that he and the applicant’s father established [Temple 3] in [year] in Chattogram city. That the applicant’s father donated capital funds and land for the welfare of “orphanage and the Buddhist community”. The letter states that [Mr A] attacked the applicant and took possession of the land donated to the orphanage;
i.Letter from [Ms E], the applicant’s sister (undated). [Ms E] states in the letter that the applicant’s wife and daughter commenced residing with her in March 2013. [Ms E] confirms that the Muslim group who attacked the applicant had no knowledge of [her] location to avoid kidnapping of the applicant’s daughter;
j.Letter from [name] from [Orphanage 1] dated 2 May 2023. The letter states that the father of the applicant donated land from his personal properties to establish a Buddhist Temple and Orphanage. The author states that he proposed that the applicant come to the Government Register Officer and he agreed and the day [in] February 2013 was fixed to register the land through the Registry Office. It is stated that the applicant was injured on [that day] on his way to the Government Register Office to finalise the land registration to the orphanage. That [Mr A] and his group attacked the applicant to persuade him not to register the land and pass title to the orphanage. That the attack occurred in the middle of the road where the applicant suffered injuries to his body and on the right side of his [Body part 1] for which the applicant needed medical attention. The letter names witnesses to the attack and provides information regarding the status of the land;
k.Letter from the [Temple 1] dated 2 May 2023. The letter states that the applicant has continued development works in the Buddhist temple which was attacked by a Muslim group and who attacked the applicant on [date] February 2013. The letter lists the names and contact numbers of villagers who witnessed the incident where the applicant suffered injuries to his [Body part 1];
l.Letter from [Dr F] dated 1 May 2023. The letter seems to state that the applicant was a patient of [Dr F] and that the applicant received treatment from [date] to [date] February 2013. The letter seems to indicate that the applicant is now fit to resume his duties;
m.Letter from [name] (undated) attesting to the applicant’s attendance at his temple in Sydney and to his good character.
n.Copy of foreign passport for the applicant’s daughter;
o.Non-certified English translation of copy of the applicant’s daughter’s Bangladeshi birth registration;
p.Copies of six newspaper articles dated 2022 and 2023 reporting on attacks on Buddhist properties in Bangladesh including the 2012 attack, and attacks on minorities in Bangladesh.
On 15 May 2023 the applicant made a further submission to the Tribunal. He attached a statutory declaration, a collection of photographs of land bought in Bangladesh in 2012, details of his business in Australia and land purchased in Australia.
In his statutory declaration dated 15 May 2023 the applicant provides further details about his father’s and his [uncle]’s contributions to the Buddhist community. He notes his father is well known in the local Buddhist community for his charity work. He states his father lived a decent life for decades and had nothing to worry about.
The applicant claims he gave a speech in front of hundreds of Buddhists in 2002 in a temple in his village. He states he visited the Buddhist community in Kolkata and [a named] Temple in [a location in] India.
Regarding his employment with [Employer 1], he states he was employed [from] November 2003 until he came to Australia in 2014.
Regarding the land which was donated to the Buddhist orphanage by his father, he repeats his evidence in respect of his attempt to have the land surveyed on [date] February 2013. He notes the survey process was interrupted by [Mr A] who did not want the transfer of the land to go through. He repeats his evidence about being injured on the [Body part 1] when struck by a bamboo stick. He states that the situation was chaotic and he is uncertain about who assaulted him. He apologises for the confusion which has arisen over his earlier evidence, namely that it was [Mr A]’s son or [Mr A] himself. He put his confusion down to being stressed during the former Tribunal hearing.
Regarding the medical treatment he sought following the above incident he states that his brother-in-law drove him to the hospital where he received stitches for the cut. He states he was instructed to rest for a few days and he did so at his sister’s house in Chittagong to avoid upsetting his wife and daughter.
The applicant repeats his claims to have reported the abovementioned incident to police [in] February 2013. He states that within a week [Mr A] and his group came to his house and damaged his property. He states that this occurred while he was at his sister’s house. He states that he then made up his mind to relocate his wife and daughter to his sister’s house in Chittagong City which he did before he left for [Country 1] [in] March 2013.
The applicant states that he returned to Bangladesh [in] September 2013 because his daughter was ill but he did not visit his house or his village. He states he returned to Bangladesh again [in] January 2014 and stayed with his sister. He had the intention of planning a ceremony in his village for his late father but somehow [Mr A] and his group came to know this and warned his neighbour that they would hurt him and his family if the ceremony went ahead. They also demanded 500,000 taka from him and damaged his house as intimidation. Therefore he decided not to hold the ceremony in the village. During that visit to Bangladesh he barely left his sister’s house. He left Bangladesh for the last time [in] February 2014.
The applicant recounts his travel to [Country 2] and [Country 3] with friends from [date] to [date] July which he describes as a holiday. Thereafter a friend suggested he visit Australia and he obtained a Visitor visa on 14 August 2014.
The applicant states that he bought another piece of land in 2012 from a Buddhist, [Mr G] which is not far from the land occupied by [Mr A]. He states that this land is also now occupied by a Muslim group. He states that after [Mr G] passed away they threatened and forced his son to give the land to them. He suspects the group is associated with [Mr A’s] group. He states he filed a complaint about this in 2018.
If he returns to Bangladesh [Mr A] will not stop targeting him and will take over all his family land and property. They might also target and attack his family. He cannot relocate to any other city in Bangladesh as [Mr A] and his group are able to find him anywhere. He has no-one to support and protect him and he will be vulnerable in Bangladesh.
He also fears harm, including bullying, violence and discrimination, as a Buddhist and a minority group member in Bangladesh.
Tribunal hearing
On 17 May 2023, the applicant appeared before the Tribunal. During the hearing discussions were held about the applicant’s background in Bangladesh, his various landholdings and disputed land claims, his religious and ethnic identity and the reasons why he fears returning to Bangladesh. Discussions were also held about his ability to relocate within Bangladesh if necessary.
The applicant reiterated his claim during the hearing that his father donated a parcel of land to a Buddhist orphanage prior to his death in 2010. He stated that after his father’s death the land, which had not yet been formally transferred to the orphanage, came under his ownership. He said that in February 2013, at the request of the director of the orphanage, he travelled to Bangladesh to attempt to survey the land in order to complete the transfer of ownership. He stated that the survey was forcefully interrupted on [date] February 2013 by [Mr A] and some of his people and he was unable to complete the survey and/or the transfer of the land to the orphanage. He said that on [that day], during the course of the thwarted survey, he sustained an injury to his [Body part 1] during a physical confrontation which ensued. He said that from that point onwards [Mr A] caused him many problems, including destroying his house, threatening his family and making demands for money. He said that after the incident [in] February 2013 he never again returned to his village.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Country of reference
The applicant claims to be a citizen of Bangladesh. A copy of the applicant’s passport was provided. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant is a Bangladeshi citizen. The applicant claimed to both the Department and the first Tribunal that he is not a citizen of a third country. The Tribunal has assessed the applicant’s claims against Bangladesh as his country of nationality for the purposes of the Convention and his receiving country for the purposes of s 36(2)(aa).
Credibility concerns
During the hearing the Tribunal proceeded to discuss with the applicant several concerns it had about observed inconsistencies in his evidence. In the course of the discussions his representative expressed his displeasure about the Tribunal’s line of questioning stating that it was negative and not focused on the facts of the case. The Tribunal noted that it has considered all the evidence before it and pointed out that it is not required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant (MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596, Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70). The Tribunal continued to put its concerns to the applicant in order that he could respond to them. They are as follows:
About the land donated to an orphanage
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the fact that various of the abovementioned letters of support he has provided in the course of these proceedings state that the physical altercation with [Mr A] and his people occurred when he and the director of the orphanage were travelling to the land registry office on [date] February 2013 and not at the site of the disputed land while attempting to have it surveyed. The applicant replied that he did not say he was attacked when going to the land registry office. The Tribunal put it to him that his supporting evidence nevertheless indicates otherwise, and he then said it could be a misunderstanding as these kinds of mistakes occur regularly in his country.
The Tribunal considered the applicant’s response but notes that the director of the orphanage, whom the applicant claimed during the hearing was present on the day of the altercation with [Mr A]’s people, is the author of two letters dated 26 September 2020 and 2 May 2023 which are referenced above. Those letters clearly indicate that the altercation occurred when he (the director) and the applicant were travelling to the land registry office on [date] February 2013, the date they previously had agreed upon to go there. The Tribunal considers the applicant has not provided a satisfactory explanation as to why a key witness to the claimed incident has described the incident in a significantly different manner to him. In the Tribunal’s view the inconsistency in respect of this key aspect of the applicant’s claims casts doubt on his credibility. In the Tribunal’s view it also raises serious concerns about the veracity of the supporting documentation provided by the applicant.

The Tribunal also discussed with the applicant his differing testimony in respect of who was responsible for causing his injury [in] February 2013. The Tribunal noted that he claimed in his statutory declaration of 1 October 2014 that it was [Mr A]’s son who threw a stick at him whereas the police FIR report tendered as evidence of his claims suggests he accused [Mr H] of causing the injury. The applicant stated during the hearing that he does not know why the police named [Mr H] in the report when the main culprit was [Mr A]. His representative noted that there are two accused noted in the FIR and this could account for why the police named [Mr H] as the person who threw the stick at the applicant. The Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that the FIR report, if it was legitimately made, would have been prepared on the basis of information provided by him. The Tribunal was not persuaded by either of the explanations provided for this discrepancy.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant attempted to rectify the confusion over who caused his injury in his statutory declaration dated 15 May 2023 where he apologises for informing the differently constituted Tribunal that it was [Mr A] himself, and not his son, who caused his injury. He claimed that the incident which occurred [in] February 2013 was very chaotic and he could not be certain who in fact threw the bamboo stick at him. He put his inconsistent evidence down to stress.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s responses and the submission made by his representative on his behalf. The Tribunal accepts that if the claimed altercation occurred it could likely have been chaotic and that it might have been difficult to identify with certainty the person responsible for causing the injury to the applicant. However, the available evidence indicates that the applicant has named three different people on different occasions as being responsible for assaulting him with a stick rather than truthfully stating from the outset that he does not know which person caused his injury. His willingness to previously provide information he knew not to be accurate adds to the Tribunal’s concerns about the reliability of his testimony.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant its concerns about his evidence in respect of the nature of the injury he claims to have sustained in the attack on [date] February 2013. Whereas his written and oral evidence indicates he received a cut on the [Body part 1], the medical evidence points to an injury to the [Body part 3] area and two letters submitted in support of his claims (see above letters dated 29 September 2014 and [date] September 2020) indicate he received injuries to the [Body part 2] and to his body. In his response the applicant referred the Tribunal to an area below his [Body part 3] as being the location of the injury he sustained. His representative argued that it is the applicant’s contention that his attacker struck him with a long bamboo pole in an attack [and] that it is possible he was injured in more than one place. While not without some doubts, the Tribunal accepts this is possible and has drawn no adverse inference from the differing evidence in respect of the location of his claimed injury.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant his evidence in respect of the claimed attack or attacks on his house. The Tribunal noted that he stated in his statutory declaration dated 1 October 2014 that within a week of the incident [in] February 2013 [Mr A] and his group ransacked his house whereas he informed the delegate during his Protection visa interview that his house was attacked a second time in December 2012. The Tribunal expressed its concern that the December 2012 attack was not mentioned in the original statement of claims and notes that he also did not mention it in his most recent statutory declaration to the Tribunal dated 15 May 2023.
The applicant responded that his house was ransacked while he was in the country and he was informed of this by his neighbour. He said there was one big attack on his house after the incident which occurred [in] February 2013. In support of his claims he has provided the Tribunal with photographs of a house which appears to be abandoned and in disarray which he claims is his house. As discussed with the applicant the Tribunal has given no weight to this evidence as there is no means of verifying who owns the house in question and whether its present condition is due to the reasons claimed by the applicant.
Noting his oral evidence that all his problems commenced after the incident [in] February 2013 the Tribunal also asked the applicant why [Mr A] and his people ransacked his house in December 2012 as previously claimed during the Departmental interview. He said that at that time they didn’t know who was causing them problems. When asked again why he failed to mention the first incident previously and in his latest statement he said that he must have forgotten. He said that his circumstances are very stressful and he is forgetful.
The Tribunal did not observe the applicant to be in a heightened emotional state during the hearing and there is no independent evidence before it to support that he has problems with his memory. The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence as to what may have occurred in December 2012 to be vague, lacking in any convincing detail and somewhat implausible. He gave no logical account as to why his house would have been ransacked prior to the incident [in] February 2013 which he claims was the catalyst for all his problems. The inconsistency in his evidence in respect to the claimed attacks on his house further adds to the Tribunal’s concerns about the veracity of his claims.
The Tribunal also discussed with the applicant the claimed events during his return trip to Bangladesh in early 2014. The Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that he stated in his statutory declaration of 1 October 2014 that when he returned he was shocked to see that his house had been destroyed. He said he went to speak to the [head monk] at his local temple. He said that [Mr A]’s people came to know that he had returned to the village and that within three days of his arrival in the village a group of local Muslim hooligans came to his house and demanded 500,000 taka. He said they threatened that if he did not pay they would kidnap his daughter. He said that the following morning he returned to Chittagong city and left Bangladesh [in] February 2014 for the last time. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that this written testimony indicates he was present in the village during his visit to Bangladesh in early 2014 whereas he stated in his statutory declaration dated 15 May 2023, that he did not physically go to the village during that visit; that he barely left his sister’s house in Chittagong city and that the threats and demands for money were made through his neighbour. In response to the Tribunal’s concern the applicant stated that it is possible that what he said before wasn’t correct. He said that the truth of the matter is that after the incident which occurred on [date] February 2013 he could not go back to his house or his village.
The Tribunal has considered the available evidence and the applicant’s responses but remains concerned about the differing account of his movements when visiting Bangladesh in early 2014. The Tribunal considers the applicant outlined in his written claims in considerable detail events which clearly indicate he returned to his village around that time. In the Tribunal’s view if his previous written evidence wasn’t correct it is because he provided an untruthful account of what occurred at that time. This further adds to the Tribunal’s concerns about his credibility.
The Tribunal also put it to the applicant that he claimed in his statutory declaration of 1 October 2014 that after returning to [Country 1] following the incident in February 2013 he became concerned for his wife and child’s safety and organised for them to move to his sister’s house in Chittagong city whereas his oral evidence given during the Protection visa interview and his most recent written account of events (see statutory declaration dated 15 May 2023) is that he took his wife and child to his sister’s house before returning to [Country 1]. The applicant responded that when the attack occurred he told his family to take shelter at his sister’s house. He said he couldn’t go there for his own safety. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s response which suggests again that he moved his family to his sister’s house prior to his return to [Country 1]. The Tribunal remains of the view that the applicant has provided inconsistent evidence in this regard.
Lastly, the Tribunal put it to the applicant that he also appears to have given inconsistent evidence in respect of his visit to [Country 2] and [Country 3]. In the statutory declaration of 1 October 2014 it is claimed that he could not get away from the group he was travelling with to seek asylum whereas he informed the delegate during the Departmental interview and the Tribunal during the hearing held on 17 May 2023 that he did not have a plan to seek asylum anywhere at that time. The applicant put the claims made in his original statement of claims down to the fact that he went to [Country 2] in a group and he hadn’t shared his story with his friends. The Tribunal notes his response but finds it does not account for why his original statement of claims suggests he might have been thinking of seeking asylum in [Country 2] or [Country 3] when he now claims he had no such intention.
The Tribunal has had regard to the supporting documentation provided by the applicant in respect of the claimed land dispute in 2013, namely the letters of support and the police FIR report, but in light of the credibility concerns expressed herein it is not satisfied that this documentation is authentic.
The Tribunal has considered the medical evidence provided by the applicant and on its best reading of those reports accepts the applicant may have sustained an injury to his [Body part 3] area in 2013. No mention is made in the reports of the cause of the injury and the Tribunal does not accept that the injury was inflicted by [Mr A] or any of his people for the reasons claimed.

100. The applicant’s representative submitted that the applicant had a good job, was married with a child and is from a respected and relatively affluent family in Bangladesh and would not have upended his life to come to Australia and remain apart from his only child for many years if his claimed circumstances were not true. The Tribunal agrees that these circumstances weigh in his favour but the Tribunal does not consider that this overcomes the concerns expressed herein about the reliability of the applicant’s evidence.
About the land the applicant purchased in 2012
101. During the hearing the applicant reiterated that he purchased land in 2012 from [Mr G]. He said the purchase price of the land was equivalent to AUD1million but it is now valued at AUD2million. He said he paid approximately two thirds of the purchase price (around AUD600,000) himself using his savings and his family assisted him with the remainder of the money. He was unable to state the exact amount he purchased the land for. He reiterated he had the land surveyed 3 times (twice before purchase and once at the time of purchase).
102. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he has received a response to any of his complaint letters or a resolution to the problem and he said he has not. He was asked if any harm has come to his family in Bangladesh over this issue. He said that his sister is unable to go to that area because the persons who took the land will think she will try to take it back and will attack her.
103. The Tribunal referred to the letters of support provided by the applicant from his sister and his [uncle] which are detailed above. The Tribunal expressed surprise that these letters, and particularly the letter from his sister who has allegedly had some involvement with the people who took his land, make no mention of this situation. The applicant responded that his sister wrote only a brief letter.
104. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the fact that the letters submitted as evidence of his problems in connection with this land state that the original owner claimed the land back for no reason whereas it is now claimed that a Muslim group, most likely [Mr A] or his associates, forced [Mr G]’s son to give the land to them. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that this appears to be two different accounts of what transpired.
105. The applicant responded that he wrote the abovementioned three letters tendered as evidence of his claims about this land and it could be that they contained some mistakes as his English is not very good. He said that his lawyer assisted him to write the statutory declaration dated 15 May 2023. He added that he showed the letters he had written about his land to the lawyer. The applicant’s representative submitted that the two accounts are not significantly different noting that the applicant has stated that [Mr G]’s son was forced to give the land to the current occupiers.
106. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s response and the submission made on his behalf by his representative. However, the Tribunal remains of the view that the applicant has provided differing testimony about the problem he encountered in 2018 when his land was lost. The Tribunal considers the wording used by the applicant in his letters clearly indicates that the seller reclaimed the land for his own use whereas the information contained in the statutory declaration indicates the seller’s son was forced to hand over the land to a third party. Furthermore, if the applicant is to be believed the owner’s son was threatened and forced to take back the land and give it to a Muslim group and if that was true the Tribunal can see no reason why he would have written in his letters to the [Official 2] and to others, that the original owner took the land back for no reason.
107. The Tribunal acknowledges the applicant’s reference to his lack of English ability perhaps contributing to any inconsistency between the two accounts of what transpired. However, the Tribunal notes he stated that he showed his letters to his representative who has made no attempt to rectify any inconsistency between the different evidence submitted.
108. The Tribunal also acknowledges that the three letters were written by the applicant in 2018 well prior to the present proceedings which could be viewed in the applicant’s favour. While the Tribunal acknowledges the letters lend some support for the applicant’s claims, given the credibility concerns expressed herein the Tribunal is not persuaded they are a truthful reflection of what has transpired.
109. The Tribunal also acknowledges the photographic evidence provided by the applicant depicting a parcel of land and what appears to be felled trees. However, these photographs do not assist the Tribunal to determine whether his claims can be believed.
110. Given the concerns expressed above and when taken together with the other credibility concerns expressed herein, the Tribunal is not persuaded that the land which was purchased in 2012 has been appropriated as claimed.
Findings of fact
111. Having carefully considered the applicant’s claims and evidence the Tribunal is prepared to accept certain of his claims. Namely that he is a Buddhist and a member of the Barua ethnic group. That he is from [a town] in Chittagong District. That he lived and worked in [Country 1] from 2003 to 2014. That he is divorced. That his father and [Uncle B] were men of considerable means and were known for their charitable work in the Buddhist community in Chittagong city and [the town]. That his father may have donated land to an orphanage prior to his death and that he (the applicant) purchased a block of land in 2012. That the applicant sustained an injury in the [Body part 3] area around the time of the claimed incident in February 2013.
112. However, when the many concerns outlined above are considered cumulatively, the Tribunal has concluded that the applicant has not provided an honest or accurate account of the claimed problems he encountered in connection with either the land his father donated to the orphanage or the land he purchased subsequently in 2012. The Tribunal is not prepared to accept that the applicant was involved in a land dispute with [Mr A] or other Muslim people in early 2013; that he was injured in an altercation with [Mr A] and his group on [date] February 2013; that his home was ransacked or destroyed; that his family were threatened and forced to relocate to Chittagong city; that threats were made to kidnap his daughter if he did not pay a large sum of money to [Mr A] or his people; or that the land he purchased in 2012 has been reclaimed and occupied by Muslim people. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant left Bangladesh for the reasons claimed.
Is there a real chance or a real risk the applicant will suffer serious or significant harm if he returns to Bangladesh?
Land Ownership
113. The applicant claims that if he returns home he will try to reoccupy his land. As the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s land has been stolen or occupied by others it therefore does not accept this claim. The Tribunal notes the applicant referred throughout the hearing to owning large amounts of land in his local area. The applicant has consistently claimed that his father was a former [Occupation 3] and a person of considerable financial status and the Tribunal is prepared to accept this. Given his death, and the fact that the applicant appears to be the only son in the family, it is prepared to accept he likely inherited some land holdings from his father. As noted above, the Tribunal is also prepared to accept he purchased the aforementioned land in 2012.
114. The Tribunal has considered whether his land holdings may cause him to be harmed in future. Sources the Tribunal has consulted indicate that land grabbing can be an issue of concern for indigenous people in Bangladesh particularly those living in the Chittagong Hill Tract (CHT) area[1].
[1] DFAT Country Information Report Bangladesh, 30 November 2022; ‘Flee or Starve to Death’, The Daily Star, 3 September 2020.
115. Regarding the land purchased in 2012, the Tribunal does not accept that it has been appropriated by Muslim people and it follows that the Tribunal is satisfied this land is still in his possession some 11 years later despite his absence from the country. Notably, the applicant claims his father owned significant tracts of land and he has not claimed that any of this land was taken from him forcefully until the claimed incident in February 2013 when the land he donated to the orphanage was allegedly appropriated by [Mr A]. As can be seen from the above, the Tribunal does not accept this.
116. The applicant claims his father lived a good life and didn’t have any worries as did his [uncle] who also reportedly owns land. When discussing this with the applicant he said that his father had good standing in the community due to his career as [an Occupation 3] and his charitable contributions to the Buddhist community. The applicant stated that he does not have the same reputation or standing and he is weak comparatively and therefore more vulnerable. The Tribunal accepts the applicant does not have the same career or religious profile as his father but as discussed with him during the hearing it does not consider he is without means given his claimed ability to purchase a significant land holding in 2012. In addition, the Tribunal notes the applicant has an established business in Australia and has also purchased land in Australia.

117. Furthermore, the applicant’s land is situated in Chittagong District which is distinct from the CHT area. That said, according to the applicant his land is very near to the CHT and the Tribunal accepts this. However, the applicant’s family has a history of land ownership which apart from the claimed incidents in 2012 and 2013, which the Tribunal rejects, has not been marred with the type of problems commonly reported among indigenous communities over land. Despite that his father is now deceased the Tribunal remains of the view that the applicant will not present as a person who is vulnerable to exploitation by opportunistic elements in society. The Tribunal is not persuaded on the available evidence that there is a real chance or a real risk that the applicant’s land will be forcefully appropriated in the future and/or that he will suffer serious or significant harm as a result of this.
118. Based on the available evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded that there is a real chance or a real risk the applicant will suffer serious or significant harm on return to Bangladesh for reason of his current land holdings and/or due to any past involvement in land disputes with [Mr A], his people or any other people.
Religion and Barua ethnicity
119. The applicant also claims that he will suffer harm on return to Bangladesh due to him being a Barua Buddhist.
120. During the hearing the applicant was asked how he normally practices his religion. He said that he prays at home and goes to the temple where he also prays and has religious discussions with the monk. The applicant was asked if his religious practice in Australia is similar to that which he did in Bangladesh and he said it was. He added that he also has continued his father’s tradition of providing support to Buddhist orphanages in his area in Bangladesh and sometimes donates money for this purpose. He also mentioned his travel to India in 2002 for religious purposes and said that he has also spoken at Buddhist celebrations in his area due to the respect afforded to his family. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he ever attempts to recruit people from other religious traditions to Buddhism and he replied that he never does that.
121. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that it is claimed his father and [Uncle B] were big donors to the Buddhist community and well known for their charitable work yet they appear to have managed to live a good life, free from problems. The Tribunal suggested that it appears he could do the same. The applicant repeated his evidence that his father held a high profile in the community and was therefore not subjected to attack whereas he does not and will be targeted for his charitable work.
122. According to DFAT’s latest country information report for Bangladesh[2] Buddhists are a small minority in Bangladesh, they are mostly indigenous and live in the CHT. As with other religious minorities many Buddhists prefer to live in communities with people of the same faith to avoid discrimination. Buddhists are generally able to receive instruction in their faith as part of the school curriculum, but teachers are not necessarily Buddhist. Sources told DFAT that Buddhists can generally access health care and there are some junior Buddhist doctors. Sources also told DFAT that minorities, including Buddhists, sometimes need to pay more than others in bribes in order to access services.
123. The report goes on to state that large-scale communal violence is possible and some Buddhists fear such violence. The anti-Hindu violence in 2021 also affected some Buddhist temples. A machete attack that killed a Buddhist monk in the CHT reportedly occurred in May 2021. Violence notably occurred in 2012 when Islamists razed Buddhist homes in the Cox’s Bazar district and temples after a false Facebook post implicated Buddhists in alleged desecration of a Quran. A subsequent investigation found that the person implicated had nothing to do with the incident. DFAT is not aware of more recent similar incidents against Buddhists, but notes a similar incident targeting Hindus, suggesting that anti-religious minority violence based on false accusations of blasphemy remains a possibility.
124. DFAT assesses that Buddhists face a moderate risk of societal violence in the form of occasional localised incidents. The kind of communal violence that occurred against Hindus in 2021 cannot be ruled out against members of other religious minorities. Violence also occurs in the context of other events, such as communal disputes over land ownership and usage in the CHT, which may be the product of race or religious discrimination.
125. Other sources confirm that religious minorities have been targeted sporadically in Bangladesh. In 2019, religious minorities across the country were attacked on several occasions with their places of worship torched and effigies vandalised.[3] In 2020, there were attacks on homes and places of worship belonging to religious minorities and plans made to evict minorities and build hotels in their settlements.[4] In 2021, citizens belonging to ethnic minority communities were killed and there were attacks and looting of houses, businesses and places of worship belonging to religious minority groups and such incidents continue to occur.[5] In July 2021, the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office noted that while the Bangladesh Government continued to give strong support to religious freedom, religious minorities, reported that they had been targeted by extremists who used section 28(2) of the Digital Security Act to file cases against them.[6]
126. The Tribunal discussed this information with the applicant during the hearing but put it to him that while communal violence does occur from time to time it appears to be sporadic, localised and not so widespread as to give rise to a finding that there is a real chance or a real risk that he would be harmed in such an occurrence. The Tribunal also noted information which indicates that the authorities have placed enforcement personnel at religious sites, during festivals and events considered potential targets for communal violence. The applicant agreed that the police do respond to calls for assistance on occasion but noted they cannot be present to guard Buddhists at all times. He stated that there are many incidents of Buddhists being targeted but not all are reported in the media.
127. In its 2019 country information report,[7] DFAT notes that the Barua are a large Buddhist group that speak Bengali and many do not identity as indigenous. It is reported that the majority of Barua live among Bangladeshis in Chittagong. DFAT assesses that most Barua, particularly those living outside the CHT, do not face societal discrimination and violence based on their ethnicity.
128. During the hearing the Tribunal discussed this information with the applicant and noted that his family background and experiences appear to accord with it. The applicant replied that he lives and practices his religion in his home area and is the owner of a lot of land. He said he promotes Buddhism and that there are many attacks on minorities.
129. The Tribunal accepts the applicant is a Barua Buddhist and due to his ethnicity would be identifiable as a Buddhist. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant’s family are known in his local community and in Chittagong city for their charitable works with Buddhists and Buddhist organisations. However, the Tribunal does not find that the applicant is a high-profile Buddhist. His religious observance in Australia, which he indicated is almost the same as that which he performed in Bangladesh, is not in the Tribunal’s view likely to raise his profile beyond that of an ordinary Buddhist and based on his oral evidence his charitable contributions to Buddhist groups is occasional. While he states he promotes Buddhism he does not proselytise. For these reasons and having regard to the abovementioned reporting the Tribunal considers that the risk of the applicant facing serious or significant harm as a Buddhist, or as a Buddhist landowner, living in Chittagong District is remote. Based on the above reporting and the applicant’s past experience, the Tribunal is also not satisfied that he will suffer discrimination, rising to the level of serious or significant harm, for reason of him belonging to the Barua ethnic group.
130. Having considered all the available evidence both individually and cumulatively, and on the totality of the information before it, the Tribunal finds that there is not a real chance that the applicant will suffer serious harm from state or non-state actors if he returns to Bangladesh due to problems arising from his land ownership, due to his Buddhist religion and/or his Barua ethnicity. The Tribunal finds he does not have a well-founded fear of persecution in Bangladesh for a Convention reason.
[2] DFAT Country Information Report Bangladesh, November 2022.
[3] Annual Human Rights Report 2019 Bangladesh, Odhikar, 8 February 2020.
[4] Annual Human Rights Report 2020 Bangladesh, Odhikar, 25 January 2021
[5] Human Rights Report 2021 – Bangladesh, Odhikar, 31 January 2022.
[6] Country Policy and Information Note Bangladesh: Religious minorities and atheists, UK Home Office, March 2022.
[7] DFAT Country Information Report Bangladesh, 22 August 2019.
Conclusions
131. 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 the Refugees Convention. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in 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). For the same reasons already articulated above the Tribunal is 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. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not 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 the criterion in s 36(2).
DECISION

134. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
Tania Flood
Member

[2023] AATA 2544

24 May 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction