2009786 (Refugee)

2009786 (Refugee) [2020] AATA 6024 (3 December 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  2009786
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Bangladesh
MEMBER:Christopher Smolicz
DATE:3 December 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Adelaide
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 3 December 2020 at 6:43pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Bangladesh – religion – Christianity – attendance and baptism in home country – beating and threats – credibility – delay in applying for protection visa – applied after not completing course of study and refusal of new student visa – limited knowledge of church teachings and practice, and activity in home country and Australia – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 5F(1), 5J(1), 36(2), 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth),
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 dependants.
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 22 May 2020 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
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 (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, 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) of the Act. 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) of the Act, 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 of the Act, 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 (the Department), 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.
Relevant extracts from DFAT’s Country Information Report, Bangladesh, 22 August 2019 are set out in the attachment to this decision.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Issue
The issue in this matter is whether the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds because of his religious beliefs.
Background
The applicant was born in [Year], Bangladesh and lived with his parents in Kafrul, Dhaka. He completed his school studies in [Year] and attended college for two years before he departed for Australia on a student visa. He travelled to Australia as the holder of a passport of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.
The applicant arrived in Australia [in] April 2012 as a holder of a Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector visa seeking to study [Subject]. He did not complete his bachelor’s degree and changed course. He was subsequently granted further student visas (Subclass 572) which ceased on 12 September 2017. On 13 September 2017 he applied for a third student visa, but the application was refused on 16 January 2018. He has not completed any studies since arriving in Australia. He applied for the protection visa which is the subject of this application on 20 February 2018.
The Tribunal has assessed the applicant’s claims against Bangladesh as the receiving country.
Summary of substantive claims for protection
The applicant made the following claims for protection:
·     He was raised a Muslim in Bangladesh.
·     He tried to become a Christian in Bangladesh in 2010 but was beaten by ‘hard-core’ Muslims and was forced to hide.
·     He secretly attended a Catholic church from 2010 to 2012 in Bangladesh and was baptised in 2011.
·     He was targeted and hunted down because of his beliefs. He managed to flee from his attackers and hide until he departed for Australia.
·     His family consider him a ‘sinner’ and he can’t trust them with his ‘whereabouts’.
·     His mother and maternal uncle are not pleased with his conversion, but they still maintain emotional and financial support to the applicant as they are scared of him returning to Bangladesh.
·     He attends a Catholic church in Australia.
·     The authorities in Bangladesh are corrupt and Christian converts are killed.
·     His family are still receiving threats in Bangladesh.
·     Islamic State (IS) will assassinate him if he returns to Bangladesh.
The applicant has provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision refusing his protection visa application. The applicant also provided the following documents in support of his application:
·     A medical certificate from a doctor in Bangladesh stating that the applicant was treated for [an] injury sustained on dated [December] 2009. The document is signed by the doctor on 15 March 2018.
·     A support letter from a church in Bangladesh dated April 2018.
·     A support letter from a Catholic church ‘[Name 1]’ in Bangladesh dated 12 April 2018.
·     A support letter from his uncle [attesting] to his ‘religious beliefs’ dated 12 May 2020.
·     A support letter from his mother [attesting] to his ‘religious beliefs’ dated 12 May 2020.
Protection Interview
The applicant took part in a protection interview on 14 May 2020. According to the delegate’s decision the applicant provided the following further information in support of his claims.
Activities in Bangladesh 2009 – 2012
He spent the majority of his time in Bangladesh in Kafrul in Dhaka where he lived with his parents [and siblings]. He attended ‘[a school]’ and attended a college before he departed for Australia on a student visa in April 2012 ([Age] years of age). He did not work in Bangladesh. He is in regular contact with his family, although his father moved to [Country 1] in 2011, from where he operates a business.
The applicant was asked during the protection visa interview about his interest and involvement in Christianity when he lived in Bangladesh.
The applicant stated that he started to attend church with his ‘Christian school friend’ who ‘insisted that he attend’ in 2009 (the applicant was [Age] years old). He attended a number of times and he would also volunteer with other church members to give food and other donations to people living in rural areas ‘in different states’. The applicant explained that he was brought up in a Muslim home and he would attend mosque with his family.
In response to questions at interview about his interest in Christianity, he explained that he felt more connected to Christianity and it ‘felt natural’ at the time. He said he did not consider any other religions.
The applicant explained that sometime in December 2010, he and his friends had just finished their volunteer work when they were approached by unknown men who asked them ‘about their organisation’. They ‘thought it was a good idea’ and they agreed to go with the men, but they were taken to an abandoned house and physically assaulted. He and his friends were released after two days without food or water, and his father helped him get to hospital where he stayed for a week recovering from his injuries.
He stated that ‘people and the police started asking about him and wanted to question him’, so he went into hiding and stayed with relatives. His father reported the matter to the police, but the police were unwilling to assist him and instead, they criticised his father for ‘letting his son cause problems’.
The applicant explained during the protection visa interview that he couldn’t return to his hometown ‘for a long time’ as ‘they’ kept looking for him because he ‘was a Christian who tried to spread the word of God’ and he had to therefore live with his relatives. The applicant also stated that he only lived apart from his family ‘towards the end of his time in Bangladesh’ as they were financially supporting him.
He claimed that he does not know who the men were who attacked him – only that they belonged to a local political group and worked for a ‘politician’. He thought that they may be associated with IS and he knew ‘they made a mistake in letting me go – they won’t do that again’. He confirmed that this is the only incident of physical harm that he experienced in Bangladesh but said he continued attending church whilst he remained in hiding.
The applicant confirmed that he attended ‘[Name 1] church’ weekly in [a location], some ‘[number] hours away’ from his hometown, for a total of three months, he then attended an ‘unofficial church’ in a ‘small house/room’ in his hometown of Kafrul. His Muslim family were not involved in these activities and they did not support his decision to seek out another religion.
The applicant submitted a medical certificate from a Bangladeshi doctor stating that he was treated for [an] injury sustained [in] December 2009. The document is signed by the doctor and dated [March] 2018. The applicant explained that the doctor was happy to provide him with the medical statement some nine years after the event as ‘I got a bad [bleed] … and the doctor remembered treating me …’
The applicant then stated that he ‘didn’t stay too long in Bangladesh’ after this incident because he was ‘scared’ and ‘on the run’.
The applicant explained that he went into hiding after this incident and because he was a minor, his family did ‘not allow him to convert’ to Christianity. The applicant confirmed that he was still living with his parents and enrolled at school during this time. However, he explained that his father spoke with the school and explained to them ‘that I wouldn’t be attending school ... and explained the situation to them … and so I only attended the exams’.
He stated that his parents were also ‘harassed’ from unknown people and threatened, and his father had to leave Bangladesh and live in [Country 1] from 2011. He further confirmed that ‘everyone’ he was close to knew he was a Christian convert.
The applicant said ‘my family itself consider me a Sinner; I can’t trust them at all and did not tell them my whereabouts’. The applicant stated his wider extended family were ‘scared’ of him because of the problems that he could bring to them because he was from ‘a different religion’, but this is contrary to his earlier statement that he lived with his extended family members when he was in hiding because he ‘couldn’t return home’.
The applicant submitted two supporting letters from his maternal uncle and mother, from Bangladesh, stating that the applicant has been attacked by people who do not agree with his ‘religious beliefs,’ both dated 12 May 2020. He explained that although his maternal uncle is Muslim, he is open-minded and knows that that the applicant ‘wasn’t hurting anyone’ and supports the applicant because ‘he is in danger’. He explained that his mother accepts him unconditionally.
The applicant stated that he was baptised into the Catholic church [in] July 2011 after he turned [Age] years old, but it was a ‘secret’ and he ‘rushed’ because he was sorting out his visa to Australia and still in hiding.
When asked about his conversion, he explained that water was poured on his head, but he doesn’t really remember what was said because it was so long ago, but it was then that he ‘knows’ he converted to Christianity, in Bangladesh, at the time of his baptism.
The applicant submitted two supporting letters from ‘[Name 1]’ church in Bangladesh. The same Priest ([Father E]) signed both letters on the 12 April 2018.
The applicant explained that one letter stated that he was baptised [in] July 2011 and the other letter was a ‘character reference’. Both letters make reference to the applicant as ‘[the applicant plus another name]’. The applicant explained that ‘[the other name]’ was the ‘Christian name’ given to him when he was baptised, but he did not choose this name, nor does he continue to use this name, nor does he know the reasons it was given to him. The applicant confirmed that he ‘hasn’t spoken to the priest in some time’, so he was unsure if he is still working at the ‘[Name 1]’ church.
The applicant was asked about the Catholic church and what he may have learned in those early years. He explained that it was a ‘Catholic mission church’ and he ‘learned about God and how to help people and how to treat animals’. He confirmed that he did ‘take the bread and wine’ weekly, but said he does not know the specific theology or reasoning behind this ritual and believes that ‘it is a good thing to share food and drink’ and it means that ‘we all belong to one God’.
The applicant explained that he was ‘too inexperienced’ to talk about God with other people in Bangladesh.
He was asked the differences he saw in Christianity (as opposed to Islam) and what motivated him to attend the church. He responded that some things were similar to what he was taught as a child, but he knew that Christianity just felt ‘different’ to Islam as it gave him a sense of forgiveness, hope and strength and he never felt that way in the Islamic religion.
The applicant explained that although it has been 10 years since the incident of harm in 2009/2010, and it has been eight years since he left Bangladesh, he believes that ‘they’ still harass his family and ‘question’ them regarding his whereabouts. He claims that ‘[Name 1]’ church was investigated and is still being monitored.
He claims that his family have not been harmed in Bangladesh because they are Muslim.
The delegate considered advice from DFAT that the use of fraudulent documents and fraudulently obtained genuine documents remains widespread in Bangladesh.[1] According to advice provided to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada in September 2010 concerning documentation in Bangladesh: ‘If we ask for it, it can be produced’.[2] The delegate therefore did not place any weight on the documents provided by the applicant in support of his application.
Activities from 2012 – 2020: knowledge of Christianity and practice in Australia
[1] DFAT Country Information Report Bangladesh (22 August 2019), Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 22 August 2019, 5.39-5.41, 20190822132438
[2] RRT Country Advice Service, Country Advice BGD36531, 20 May 2010; RRT Research & Information, Research Response BGD31943, 19 July 2007
The applicant said during his interview that he attended the ‘[Name 2]’ in Adelaide from 2013 to 2017, but he could not recall the name of the priest or bishop that held the services. He said that he attended every Sunday, but he was not involved in any activities such as volunteering or bible studies, although he did ‘donate some money’.
The applicant said that from 2017 he started to attend another Catholic church that was close to the previous church as ‘one of his colleagues attended there’. He claims it is ‘[a Catholic] church’ called ‘[Name 3]’, but he wasn’t sure if the priest that he knows [is] still there or ‘if he went back to Sri Lanka’. He also confirmed that he is not involved with activities organised by the church outside of attending on Sundays.
The delegate noted that according to open sources, the ‘[Name 2]’ and ‘[Name 3]’ are located within 10 minutes of each other. The delegate was unable to locate ‘[Name 3]’.
In response to questions at the interview, the applicant explained that he wanted to be more involved in the Catholic church, but he was traumatised by what happened to him in Bangladesh and he was fearful for his family in case anyone from his country noticed him attending church in Australia. He explained that ‘people would see me and assume I am a Muslim’, so he prefers to be ‘hidden’ and leave straight after the service/mass has finished. However, at another time during the interview he explained generally that he ‘loves talking to the priests as I learn so much from them … I just feel happy talking to them and maybe because I don’t have anyone here, they have been so welcoming …’
When he was asked if there was a priest or church member from either church that could attest to his attendance or support his claim, he explained that ‘no one knows me very well … I don’t want to drag them into this process, I don’t want anyone to be bothered and I haven’t told them about my visa process’. He explained again that he is ‘too scared to talk to anyone’ in Australia.
The applicant was asked about Christian holidays and specific information about the Catholic church and their rituals or beliefs and what he has observed. He was asked questions relating to his favourite scripture or Bible story as he confirmed that he owns a ‘King James Bible’ that he ‘reads regularly’ or ‘listens to’, as it has an audio function on his phone.
He confirmed that he has not undertaken any specific rituals within the Catholic church. He did not know any specific Catholic holidays or the names of their Saints, nor was he able to explain the theological significance of Christmas or why he takes the ‘bread and the wine’ every Sunday as he claimed. He was unsure of the last sermon that he listened to as he said he hasn’t attended church since February because of the COVID-19 restrictions.
He explained that he does not have a ‘favourite’ story or scripture from the Bible as he ‘just reads (or listens) to them all’. He responded that he listens to Christian music on YouTube, although he doesn’t have a favourite song in particular as he ‘likes them all’.

He stated that Easter is a time when you celebrate Jesus coming back to life. He generally explained what Christianity has meant to him and what it means to be a Christian. He was not able to offer a further detailed explanation into the reasoning behind his baptism, except that it means he ‘belongs to Christianity, you cannot sin or harm others or animals, and you live the life Christ wants’.
The applicant was asked how he would practice Christianity if he went back to Bangladesh. He stated that he it is more volatile in Bangladesh for minority religious groups and he would not be able to attend church, and furthermore, he is ‘targeted’ and ‘they’ will know if he tries to return.
The delegate found that his responses were vague, generalised and measured and he did not relate any scriptures or stories to his own life or explain why they provided any personal meaning for him. The delegate did not find the applicant’s testimony credible. The delegate acknowledged that he has learned about basic Christian doctrine, likely from his own research and sporadic attendance at a Catholic church, but did not find that he has made a true and genuine conversion to Christianity at this time, nor that Christianity is a defining feature in his life in Australia.
The delegate found it significant that the applicant was not able to provide the names of his fellow church members and leaders and his overall narrative in relation to his Christian/Catholic knowledge and practice was impersonal, generalised and ambiguous.
The delegate found the applicant’s oral and narrative testimony is evidence that he is seeking a migration outcome and has engaged in sur place conduct for this purpose.
Tribunal hearing
The applicant took part in a hearing before the Tribunal on 19 October 2020. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s evidence at the hearing and did not find it to be credible.
The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence vague, inconsistent and lacking in detail. The Tribunal’s concerns are detailed below.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant about why he fears returning to Bangladesh.
The applicant said he grew up in a strict Muslim family. He would regularly attend the Mosque and attended religious teaching at a Madras. In 2006, when he was attending [school], he had a Christian school friend who encouraged him to attend his church. He was curious and went to church on a few occasions. He liked the church and felt welcomed. He did not tell his parents.
After he finished his exams and was on a two-month break, he went back to the church. He did not tell his parents and told them he would be spending time with his school friend. He felt close and comfortable with the religion and in 2008 he decided he wanted to convert and become a Christian. The Tribunal finds it unusual that the applicant, who was [a young teenager] at the time, would decide to change his religion after being brought up in the Muslim faith.
The applicant said he felt comfortable in the church. He would take part in giving clothes and food to the poor. One evening when he finished his church activities he was walking with his friend in the street. They were approached by a group of thugs. He was beaten and sustained serious [injuries]. They were taken to a hut and kept there for two days. When he was released, he told his father and was taken to hospital. He claims he was attacked by the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) political party.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if the attackers said anything to him or asked any questions. The applicant said no one said anything. The Tribunal asked the applicant how he knew that the people who attacked him were members of JI. The applicant said that his father told him that is the way the political party operates in Bangladesh. The Tribunal observed that it seemed unusual that he and his friend would be taken to a hut and kept for two days and nothing would be said, no questions were asked and no demands made. The applicant said that the thugs operate like this Bangladesh and they keep you locked up so you can not go to the police. After further questioning, the applicant said that the thugs probably knew about his involvement with the church. When asked how the thugs knew about his involvement with the church the applicant said he was speculating and could not provide an explanation.
The Tribunal does not find the applicant’s explanation credible. The applicant said the incident occurred in June 2008. The Tribunal notes that according to his evidence given at the protection interview, detailed in the delegate’s decision, the incident occurred in December 2010.
The applicant referred the Tribunal to a letter from his treating doctor in Bangladesh in support of his claim. The Tribunal told the applicant it finds it unusual that his treating doctor would be writing a letter in March 2018 about an incident which occurred in December 2010. The applicant said the doctor was a family friend, so he recalled the incident. The Tribunal also finds the claim in the letter that the applicant was injured in December 2009 was inconsistent with his evidence that he was attacked and injured in June 2008. The applicant was unable to provide a response to the Tribunal’s concerns.
At the hearing the applicant said the incident was not reported to the police. The Tribunal notes that in his protection interview the applicant said that his father did report the incident to the police.
The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s evidence about his injuries and the letter and does not accept it is genuine. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant came to the adverse attention of religious extremists in Bangladesh and was kidnapped and assaulted.
The applicant said he kept a low profile for the next two years when he was studying at college. His father explained to the college the difficulties he experienced, and he was permitted to not attend classes and undertook his lessons from home. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence that he was permitted to complete his final two years of schooling from home usual.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he attended church during this time. The applicant said he was not going to church, but his religious beliefs got him through.
The applicant said that he spoke with his friend and decided to get baptised in 2011. The Tribunal asked the applicant what study he undertook to prepare him for his baptism. The applicant said he did no study and it was done in secret. He could not name the priest or the church where he was baptised. After further questioning he said the church was called ‘[Name 1]’. When asked to explain why it would be called ‘[Name 1]’, the applicant said he never asked. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence about his baptism vague and unconvincing. The Tribunal would have expected the applicant to attend religious classes, know the name of his priest and have an understanding of the significance of baptism if he was making a decision to change religions.
The Tribunal asked the applicant the about size of his Catholic congregation in Bangladesh. The applicant said he did not know and did not spend much time in the church. He assumed it would be large due to the size of the church. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s evidence which is inconsistent with his evidence that he attended church every Sunday. The Tribunal would have expected the applicant to be able to describe the size of his congregation.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant about the support letters from his church in Bangladesh provided in support of the application. The applicant said his brother sent him the letters. He could not tell the Tribunal the name of the priest who signed the letters. The Tribunal would have expected the applicant to know the name of the priest who was writing a reference letter in support of his religious conversion.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why the letter referred to him by the last name of ‘[Name]’. The applicant said it was the Christian name that was given to him when he converted to Christianity. The Tribunal asked the applicant if the name was associated with a Catholic saint. The applicant said he never asked, did not do any research on the name and did not use the name. The Tribunal would have expected the applicant to be in a position to explain the meaning and reason of the name that was given to him at his baptism if he was changing religions.
The Tribunal also finds unusual that [Fr E] would be writing a letter in April 2018 purporting to be evidence of the applicant’s baptism in 2011. The Tribunal asked the applicant if a certificate was given to him at the time of his baptism. The applicant said he was given a baptismal certificate at the time but lost it because he was moving around a lot.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if could explain the origins of the Catholic church in Bangladesh. The applicant said the church was old and started in the 17^th century, he thinks it was introduced at the time of the British. He thinks a missionary travelled through China, India and Bangladesh. He claims he read a lot of books about the church in Bangladesh but could not name one of the books he had read because he could not remember. The Tribunal has had regard to country information and notes that the first Catholics to land on the coast of Bangladesh near Chittagong were Portuguese merchants in 1518.[3]
[3] BANGLADESH Bangladesh’s Catholic Church celebrates 500 years (video and photos) (asianews.it), DFAT Country Information Report Bangladesh 22 August 2019 [3.55]
The Tribunal and had regard to the applicant’s evidence and does not accept the applicant was baptised in Bangladesh. The Tribunal finds the letters purportedly issued by [Fr E] are not genuine. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s limited knowledge and involvement in the Catholic church in Bangladesh does not support his claim that he ‘spread the word of God’ in Bangladesh.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant about his religious practice in Australia.
The applicant said when he came to Australia, he did not know anyone and attended different churches. He met a [friend] who invited him to go to his church.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he could name the churches he would attend in Australia. The applicant said he could not remember the name but one of the churches as a ‘Uniting’ church in [Suburb] (South Australia). There was another church in the city and on ‘[Name] Road’. He could not remember the name. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he would attend a Uniting church if he had converted to the Catholic faith. The applicant said the was not aware there was a difference and he just googled it.
He said he last attended the church in 2014 and did not know the name of the local priest. He would only attend once a month and would keep a low profile because he feared that people in the Bangladeshi community might find out he was attending church in Australia and this would cause trouble for his family in Bangladesh.
When asked if he had any reason to suspect that people would cause trouble for his family in Bangladesh if they knew he was attending church in Australia, the applicant said he was speculating and did not know. After further questioning the applicant said his brother told him that people were hanging around his family home in Bangladesh and must have known something about him. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s claim that his family were in danger in Bangladesh because he attended a Christian church in Australia vague, speculative and lacking detail. The applicant was unable to provide any evidence about what people were attending at this family home in Bangladesh, when this occurred or why it had anything to do with his religious beliefs.
After further questioning the applicant said he attended bible studies in Australia. The Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence about attending bible studies in Australia vague and lacking in detail. The applicant could not tell the Tribunal when he attended, the name of the church or the priest that took the classes. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s evidence and does not accept he attended any bible classes or religious tuition in Australia.
The Tribunal observed that one of the important features of the church was the congregation (its people). The Tribunal asked the applicant if any person or priest in Australia could give a reference in support of his religious observation in Australia. The applicant said his [friend] had returned back to his country and he has not spoken to the priest for a long time. He did not want to ask for a reference unless he knew someone really well.
The Tribunal observed that there was a significant delay from the time he arrived in Australia in April 2012 and the time he applied for protection in February 2018. The applicant said when he arrived in Austria he was focusing on his studies, and though he would be able to get a good job and stay in Australia. He was not aware he could apply for protection at the time. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s explanation is not consistent with his earlier evidence that his father sent him to Australia so that he could escape persecution in Bangladesh.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he had been involved with any Christians from Bangladesh since he arrived in Australia. For example, the Tribunal observed at the hearing that the Bangladesh Christians in Australia had formed a community (Bangladesh Christian Fellowship of Australia) which was only accessible by social media.[4] The applicant said he was not a member and did not know about the group. The Tribunal finds it unusual that the applicant would not take steps to search for fellow Christians from his own community in circumstances where he claims he was escaping persecution in Bangladesh because of his religious beliefs.
[4] >
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it must assess his claims looking to the reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal noted that he had departed Bangladesh eight years ago. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he fears that the same people will still be seeking to cause him harm. The applicant said he thought things had calmed down and would be better but they also could escalate, and that Bangladesh had an Islamic government.
The Tribunal has had regard to DFAT’s Country Information report and notes that Bangladesh has long had a two-party political system dominated by the Awami League (AL) and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). The current AL government has traditionally been broadly secular, liberal, rural-based and broadly in favour of relations with India, while the BNP has traditionally been more accommodating of political Islam, conservative, and urban-based. DFAT reports, however, that the parties do not necessarily strictly adhere to these policy platforms. In recent years, for example, the AL has worked to cultivate close ties with conservative Islamists.[5]
[5] DFAT Country Information Report Bangladesh 22 August 2019 [3.61]
The Tribunal referred the applicant to DFAT’s country information and noted that no legal or other restrictions prevent Christians from freely practising their faith and he was able to attend church in Bangladesh.
The Tribunal also observed that it was unusual for someone at the young age [to] change religions. The Tribunal asked the applicant what attracted him to the Catholic church. The applicant said he is a thinker with a scientific mind who questions everything. He was attracted to the ‘love of God’. The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain what he saw as the differences between Islam and Christianity. The applicant said there were contradictions in Islam and he felt more natural and relaxed with the Catholic faith and its teachings.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he could explain the significance of the holy sacrament of communion. The applicant was unable to provide a meaningful explanation and said ‘God and spirit, father and son are all the same’. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he took the eucharist when he attended mass and what it meant to him. The applicant was unable to answer the question and after further explanation he said he did take the eucharist and it means forgiveness. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he could name any other holy sacraments. The applicant could not answer the question.
The applicant said he was in a very difficult situation. If he went to church every day, he would be able to provide all the answers, but his life was in danger and he was unable to communicate in a normal way and therefore was unable to provide further details about his religious practice. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence does not support his claim he ‘spread the word of God’ in Bangladesh.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he was not able to undertake further religious study in Australia where he had religious freedom. The applicant said he was not certain he would be protected and was scared that people in Australia would tell other people in Bangladesh.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant provided the following of media articles in support of his application:
·RAB arrests two JMB militants, thwarts plan to kill converted Christians;[6]
·Twelve militants charged over Catholic shopkeeper killing;[7]
·Bangladesh: Christians ‘appreciated’ but attacks continue;[8]
·Fear stalks Bangladesh's Christians after attacks;[9]
·Oppressed Christians in Bangladesh are looking forward to the visit of the Pope;[10]
·Bangladesh cracks down on religious NGOs.[11]
[6] >
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he wanted to refer the Tribunal to any specific information that was relevant to his claims in the articles. The applicant said it was just general information about the situation in Bangladesh.
Well-founded fear of persecution
In assessing the applicant’s evidence that he is a Christian convert who fears persecution in Bangladesh, the Tribunal, as was the delegate, is conscious not to impose any arbitrary standards on the level of knowledge required of an adherent, or the length of time a adherent must worship in order to be regarded as a genuine convert to a new faith, or how long such conversion should take place.
Country information confirms that Bangladesh is a majority Muslim country with about 89 per cent of the population following the Muslim faith. The Tribunal accepts the applicant grew up in a Muslim family and would have regularly attended Mosque and religious teaching at a Madras in Bangladesh.
The applicant claims when he was attending school in about year [Number], he had Christian school friend who encouraged him to attend his church. The Tribunal accepts the applicant may have been curious and went to a Catholic church on a few occasions. The Tribunal accepts the applicant may also have showed some interest in his friend’s faith when he was living in Bangladesh. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s minimal engagement with the Catholic faith as a young person in Bangladesh would have brought him to the adverse attention of the Bangladeshi authorities, ‘hard-core’ or extremist Muslim groups or any person in his family or community.

The applicant also claims to have had a Christian friend in Australia who introduced him to a local church. The Tribunal also accepts the applicant may have had a Christian friend in Australia and attended at a church with his friend on occasion. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s evidence and notes however he did not form any relations within the congregation. When questioned at the hearing he did not know the name of the church or the priest. The Tribunal finds that the applicant did not attend any social activities or bible studies in the Catholic church in Australia. The Tribunal finds that when his Christian friend left Australia the applicant ceased his involvement and interest in the Christian community in Australia.
The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s evidence and finds he displayed limited knowledge of his Catholic parish in Bangladesh. He did not know the size of the congregation or the name of the priest. He did not know the name of the priest who sent the reference letters in support of his application. When first questioned he could not recall the name of the church. He could not provide any meaningful explanation about his baptism or explain why he was given the name ‘[Name]’ or what the name meant. The Tribunal also finds the applicant’s explanation that he did not undertake any religious study prior to his baptism highly unusual in circumstances where he was [an age] year old, brought up as a Muslim and now claims he was changing religion.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant is a Christian convert who was secretly baptised in Bangladesh when he was about [age] years old. As detailed above the Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence about his baptism lacking in credibility and does not accept the reference letters to be genuine.
Tribunal does not accept the applicant ‘spread the word of God’ in Bangladesh. The Tribunal finds the applicant did not come to the adverse attention of IS, JI supporters or any other fundamentalist Islamic groups in Bangladesh. The Tribunal finds the applicant manufactured his evidence about being taken to an abandoned house, kept prisoner and assaulted by IS followers.
The Tribunal did not find the medical evidence provided from Bangladesh to be genuine. The Tribunal finds the applicant provided inconsistent evidence about when the assault took place. The Tribunal also does not accept the applicant was in hiding when he was completing his schooling because he feared for his life in Bangladesh. The Tribunal finds his father left Bangladesh in 2011 for employment reasons and not because he was threatened over the applicant’s religious beliefs.

100. In conclusion, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence about his interest and engagement in Christianity unconvincing. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant engaged with Christianity or the Catholic church in any meaningful way in Bangladesh or in Australia.
101. As detailed above, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant is a Christian convert who was persecuted in Bangladesh because of his religious beliefs and had to escape to Australia because he feared for his life. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence about his religious conversion, the persecution he experienced in Bangladesh and his participation in the Catholic faith vague, inconsistent and lacking in credibility.
102. The Tribunal finds it significant that the applicant has now been living in Australia for about eight years and has had minimal engagement with the Catholic church in Australia. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s evidence at the hearing and finds he was unable to provide any meaningful detail about his interaction with the Catholic faith and community since he arrived in Australia. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation that he did not interact with the Christian community in Australia because it would put his family’s life in danger in Bangladesh. The Tribunal finds there is no evidence to support this claim. The Tribunal finds the applicant was free to practice and express his religious beliefs, learn about Christianity and interact with the Christian community since he arrived in Australia. He did not do so in any meaningful way. The Tribunal does not accept he will be viewed as an imputed Christian convert if he was to return to Bangladesh. The Tribunal does not accept his family will consider him a ‘sinner’. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s conduct in Australia and therefore does not accept he will continue to engage with the Christian community if he was to return to Bangladesh.
103. The Tribunal also finds the applicant arrived in Australia in April 2012 as the holder of a temporary visa so that he could study in Australia. He did not complete any of his studies in Australia. The Tribunal finds that the applicant waited for almost six years before he applied for a protection visa. The Tribunal also finds that applicant applied for the protection visa in February 2018, about one month after his student visa was refused (16 January 2018). The Tribunal would have expected that the applicant would have applied for protection as soon as he arrived if his life was in danger in Bangladesh. The Tribunal finds the delay and timing of his application for a protection visa are relevant factors in assessing whether he holds a genuine subjective fear of persecution in Bangladesh.
104. Looking to the reasonably foreseeable future, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a real chance the applicant will face serious harm if he returns to Bangladesh because of his religious beliefs. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s fear of persecution in not well-founded.
105. 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).
Complementary protection
106. 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).
107. As discussed above, the Tribunal did not find the applicant’s evidence about the circumstances of his conversation to the Christian faith to be credible. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant or his family in Bangladesh came to the adverse attention of Islamic extremists because of his religious beliefs. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant will continue to engage with the Christian faith if he returns to Bangladesh in the future. The Tribunal also does not accept the applicant would be perceived to be religious convert if he returned to Bangladesh.
108. In conclusion, for the reasons stated above, the Tribunal does not accept on the evidence before it, 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 because he is a religious convert or because of religious beliefs.
109. 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).
110. 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
111. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
Christopher Smolicz
Member

ATTACHMENT
DFAT Country information Report Bangladesh 22 August 2019 [3.27 – 3.36]
RELIGION
Bangladesh is a majority Muslim country, with Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, and indigenous religious minorities. The CIA World Factbook reports that around 89 per cent of the population is Muslim. Muslims are almost entirely Sunni, although small Shi’a and Ahmadi minorities exist. About ten per cent of the population is Hindu. The remaining 1 per cent of the population are from other religions, mostly Buddhism and Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant), which are especially prevalent amongst Indigenous people.
Religious minorities reside throughout the country in small numbers. The Constitution holds that Islam is the state religion but commits the state to ensuring equal status and equal rights for all religion, and specifically mentions Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity. The Constitution also commits the state to upholding secularism by not granting political status in favour of any religion, by prohibiting the abuse of religion for political purposes, and by prohibiting discrimination or persecution of persons protecting any religion. It provides for the right to profess, practise, or propagate all religions ‘subject to law, public order, and morality’, and states religious communities or denominations have the right to establish, maintain and manage their religious institutions. The Constitution stipulates that no one attending any educational institution shall be required to receive instruction in, or participate in ceremonies or worship pertaining to, a religion to which they do not belong.
Religious Conversion
There are no laws prohibiting religious conversion in Bangladesh. DFAT assesses that individuals converting from Islam to another religion (generally Christianity) are more likely to face societal pressure than are individuals converting to Islam. Rumours that Christian churches are seeking to convert Muslims have occasionally led to localised violence against Christian individuals and institutions. In separate incidents in early 2016, Islamist militants murdered Christian converts in Jhenaidah, west of Dhaka, and in Kurigram, northern Bangladesh.
NGOs and the domestic media have reported that Islamist groups have forcibly converted non-Muslim indigenous children in the CHT and other rural areas. The reports allege that the groups convince parents to relinquish custody of their children by claiming they will provide the children with a higher quality of education and lifestyle in Dhaka and other developed cities. The groups instead forcibly convert the children to Islam and place them in madrassahs without their parents’ knowledge or consent. In January 2017, police in Bandarban (in the CHT) arrested two men for the alleged trafficking of four children aged between nine and 13. DFAT assesses that the claims of forced conversion are credible.
DFAT assesses that the risk associated with conversion from Islam to Christianity varies according to individual circumstances, particularly when such risk is associated with family objections. Indigenous people who convert often do so in the context of community conversions, which carries a lower risk because Christian organisations are likely to integrate themselves into the communities providing schools, healthcare or other facilities (see also Christians). A lone convert in a smaller community would be likely to face a greater risk.
Christians
Christianity first arrived in Bangladesh in the 15th century with Portuguese traders. Bangladesh has historically hosted three distinct Christian groups: the descendants of those converted by the Portuguese, who are predominantly Catholic; the descendants of those converted during the British era, who are predominantly Protestant; and indigenous peoples who converted en masse both before and after independence. With many of the first two groups emigrating from Bangladesh in recent decades, the third group now comprises the majority of Bangladeshi Christians. Christians living in and around Dhaka are not easily distinguishable from other Bengalis, although many Catholics have identifiable surnames (often of Portuguese origin). Information about people that convert to Christianity is provided in Religious Conversion.
No legal or other restrictions prevent Christians from freely practising their faith, and Christians are entitled to equal treatment under the Constitution. Christians are able to access state schools, hospitals and other services. Christians have made a significant contribution to public life, particularly in relation to social welfare – a legacy of historical and continuing missionary efforts. The Christian education system, which operates throughout the country from primary to tertiary levels and is open to all faiths, is held in high regard by the communities in which Christian schools and universities operate. This provides Christians with some degree of protection against harassment at the local level.
As noted in Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) indigenous people and Buddhists, ethnic and religious issues frequently overlap in the CHT. Disputes between predominantly Muslim Bengali settlers and indigenous groups from minority religions (including Christians) occur frequently, particularly over land ownership and usage. While some of these disputes may take on religious overtones, DFAT assesses that in most cases religion is a contributing factor rather than a causative one. Rumours that churches are seeking to convert Muslims, local tensions over interfaith relationships, and news of US-led military activities in or against Muslim countries have all occasionally led to threats against Christian individuals and institutions. Opposition party activists targeted Christian (and other minority) communities before and after the January 2014 parliamentary elections because of their perceived political affiliation with the AL.
The small-scale localised attacks carried out by Islamist militant groups against minority religious and social groups across the country in 2013-16 killed or seriously injured several Christians. Authorities despatched police to protect churches and clergy in response to the attacks, and in response to death threats made by militants. Isolated attacks and threats by militants against Christians continue to be reported, but these claims sometimes lack credibility. For example, in December 2017 a Catholic priest was reported to have been abducted in the northeast, subsequently turned up alive in Sylhet after claiming to have escaped his kidnappers. At a subsequent press conference, police accused the priest of staging the kidnapping, claiming to have CCTV footage of him checking into hotels and riding his own motorcycle during his absence.
DFAT assesses that Christians face a low risk of societal violence in the form of occasional localised incidents. This risk is higher for Christians who convert from Islam in the context of a lone conversion without the support of their community or family, but the extent of the risk would then depend on individual circumstances. Like other minorities, Christians may face a risk of sporadic attacks from Islamist militants.
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.
…

[2020] AATA 6024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Standing