1923439 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by Mr and Mrs A, and their child. The applicants, who had arrived in Australia on student visas and remained lawfully, sought protection on the basis of their conversion from Islam to Christianity and the alleged persecution they would face upon return to Bangladesh. The delegate had refused their application, and this decision was under review by the Tribunal.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution by reason of their conversion to Christianity should they be returned to Bangladesh. This required the Tribunal to consider the definition of a refugee under section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), the meaning of a well-founded fear of persecution under section 5J, and the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, including the meaning of "significant harm" as defined in section 36(2A). The Tribunal also had regard to Ministerial Direction No. 84 and relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicants were who they claimed to be and had no rights of entry or residence in a third country, meaning Bangladesh was the relevant receiving country. Mrs A testified to her strict Muslim upbringing, her arranged marriage, and her growing discomfort with Islamic strictures, leading to her decision to convert to Christianity around 2015. She was baptised in April 2019. The Tribunal considered the evidence presented, including the delegate's decision and recorded interview, and the applicants' submissions.

Ultimately, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration. It directed that the first and second named applicants (Mr and Mrs A) satisfy section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act*, and that the third named applicant (their child) satisfy section 36(2)(b)(i) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as the first and second named applicants. This indicates that the Tribunal found grounds for reconsideration, suggesting the delegate's decision may have erred in its assessment of the applicants' claims.