1909552 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of two decisions by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse the applicant a Safe Haven Enterprise (Subclass 790) visa. The applicant, claiming to be a citizen of Bangladesh, had arrived in Australia in 2012 and had previously been granted a Humanitarian Stay (Temporary) (Subclass 449) visa. Following the lifting of certain statutory bars, the applicant was invited to apply for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa, which was subsequently refused on two occasions. The Tribunal consolidated the reviews of these two refusal decisions.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether he was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H of the Act, or whether Australia had protection obligations towards him under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing the applicant's claims of political persecution due to his alleged membership of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and the credibility of his account of events.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of political persecution by the Awami League and the authorities in Bangladesh. It noted significant discrepancies in the applicant's identity documents and his oral evidence regarding his name and date of birth, although it ultimately accepted he was a national of Bangladesh. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, nationality, or membership of a particular social group. It concluded that the applicant's claims appeared to be manufactured to support his protection visa application and that he did not satisfy the criteria for being a refugee or for complementary protection.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decisions to refuse the applicant a Safe Haven Enterprise visa for both his initial application made in 2016 and his subsequent application made in 2020. The applicant was found not to satisfy any of the criteria for the grant of a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Act.