2114765 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual from Bangladesh. The applicant claimed to fear persecution upon return to Bangladesh due to alleged past persecution by business rivals, who were also members of the ruling Awami League (AL), and a general fear of AL supporters due to his alleged support for the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP). The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion or membership of a particular social group, and whether he faced a real risk of significant harm under complementary protection provisions.

The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims regarding his business dealings, his alleged involvement with the BNP, and the ongoing threats from his former business rivals, [Mr A] and [Mr B]. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the applicant's fear of persecution was objectively well-founded, considering the consistency of his statements, the evidence provided, and the country information regarding Bangladesh. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant's alleged past political affiliations or his status as a failed asylum seeker would place him at risk of serious harm upon return.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's business may have been undermined by his competitors in the past, it did not accept that they threatened to kill him or continued to pursue him after he left Bangladesh. The Tribunal also found inconsistencies in the applicant's accounts of his involvement with the BNP, ultimately not accepting his claims of past political activity or affiliation. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not face a real chance of persecution for reasons of political opinion or membership of a particular social group. Furthermore, based on country information, the Tribunal found it unlikely that the applicant would face adverse attention from authorities as a failed asylum seeker.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not meet the criteria for a refugee or for complementary protection.