2313878 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 1395

2313878 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 1395 (27 FEBRUARY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

Tribunal Number: 2313878
Tribunal:General Member A Verduci
Date:27 February 2025

Place:Melbourne
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 27 February 2025 at 10:15am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Stateless/Myanmar/Bangladesh – Federal Circuit Court remittal – citizenship and country of reference – Rohingya born in Myanmar and living in Bangladesh since childhood or Bangladeshi citizen – harassed and beaten – parents and sister gained Bangladeshi identity documents but applicant didn’t – brother’s separate review heard by same member, with substantially similar claims and submissions – country information – inconsistent and irreconcilable claims and evidence – information and documentation provided by other family members in previous applications and identity assessment report – found to be Bangladeshi citizen – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H(1)(a), 5J(1), 36(2)(a), (aa), (2A), 45AA, 65, 424A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 1.12(4), 2.08F, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND

The applicant claims to be a [Age]-year-old, male, stateless Rohingya born in Myanmar. He arrived in Australia [in] May 2013 without identity documents or a visa. He arrived in Australia before mainland Australia was excised from the migration zone.
He travelled to, and arrived in, Australia with his brother.
Visa application
The applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 13 August 2013. However, by operation of s 45AA of the Act and reg 2.08F of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations), from 16 December 2014 the application is taken to be, and to have always been, a valid application for a Temporary Protection (Class XD) visa and is taken not to be, and never to have been, a valid application for a Protection (Class XA) visa.
The applicant’s brother also applied for a protection visa at the same time.
By way of a summary, the applicant said in his protection visa application that:
a.He is an ethnic Rohingya who was born in Myanmar. He is stateless by birth, as are his parents, brother and [sisters].
b.He fled Myanmar in about 2000 and went to Bangladesh with this brother. His parents and sisters stayed behind in Myanmar.
c.His family faced discrimination and harassment living in Myanmar but the applicant was never personally targeted.
d.He attended [School] in Dhaka City, Bangladesh between approximately 2001 to 2007 and completed studying in years [Year] to [Year].
e.He was employed in Bangladesh as [an occupation 1] from 2007 to 2012 and self employed as [an occupation 2] from 2008 to 2012.
The applicant attended an interview with an officer from the Department of Home Affairs on 4 February 2015. I have listened to a complete audio recording of that interview. The applicant gave evidence and claims consistent with what he said in his protection visa application.
After the hearing, the Departmental officer invited the applicant to comment on information that appeared inconsistent with aspects of the applicant’s claims. The material raised concerns about the applicant’s claim to be a stateless Rohingya from Myanmar.
The applicant then acknowledged that he had failed to disclose the length of time that he had been living in Bangladesh and that his family were now living there. He gave new evidence that included:[1]
a.He moved to Bangladesh with his family in [Year]. His family concealed their identity but were forced to move house multiple times when it was found out that they were Rohingya.
b.On one occasion their house was ransacked. The applicant and members of his family were locked in a room while his father was beaten.
c.His brother was beaten by a group of men who threatened to expose their Rohingya ethnicity.
d.In 2010 he was taken from his house by ‘goons’ who demanded he pay them money.
e.In 2007 his family were able to apply for a Bangladeshi National Identity Card. His parents received their cards in 2010 but the applicant did no not.
f.His sister married a Bangladeshi man in 2013 who helped her acquire Bangladeshi identity documents.
[1] Applicant’s statutory declaration dated 26 April 2017.
The delegate found that the applicant and his family were Bangladeshi citizens. The delegate did not accept that the applicant was a stateless Rohingya from Myanmar and found that his country of reference was Bangladesh. As a Bangladeshi national, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm in Bangladesh. Accordingly, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met s 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act) and made a decision refusing to the grant the applicant a visa on 3 November 2017.
Application for review
The applicant lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) on 28 November 2017.
He gave a written submission dated 9 May 2022 which maintained that he is a stateless Rohingya born in the Rakhine State in Myanmar and acknowledged that the primary point of contention in the delegate’s decision was in relation to the assessment of the applicant’s identity. The remainder of the submission detailed extracts of country information.
He attended a video hearing with the AAT (differently constituted) on 16 May 2022 and gave oral evidence in support of his claims. I have listened to a complete audio recording of that hearing. His evidence during that hearing was broadly consistent with his statutory declaration dated 26 April 2017.
After the hearing, he was invited to comment, in writing, on the particulars of information that the AAT (differently constituted) would be the reason or a part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.
The applicant’s reply is an email received on 20 June 2022. In summary, it says that the applicant:
·has no further evidence to give the AAT;
·has no relationship with his sister;
·is an ethnic Rohingya born in the Rakhine State in Myanmar; and
·has no control over any adverse information give to the AAT (differently constituted) by his brother.
The AAT (differently constituted) found that the applicant was a not a credible or reliable witness.[2] It found that the applicant was a Bangladeshi citizen and that Bangladesh was his country of reference for the purposes of the Migration Act. It did not accept that the applicant was a stateless Rohingya from Myanmar and was not satisfied that he faced a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm.
[2] Unpublished AAT decision with case number 1729912 dated 30 June 2022.
The applicant applied to the Federal Circuit of Australia in relation to the AAT’s decision. He was successful and his application was remitted back to the AAT for determination according to law.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT was abolished and replaced with the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal).
If a proceeding was commenced in the AAT but not finalised before 14 October 2024, it must be continued in the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) in a manner that is efficient and fair. Anything done in, or in relation to, the proceeding before the 14 October 2024 continues to have effect for the purposes of, or in relation to, the proceeding after that date. Anything done in, or relation to, the proceeding before 14 October 2024 that was validly done according to the applicable law at the time is taken to be valid under, or to have been done in accordance with, the law as it is now, for purposes of the proceeding after the 14 October 2024. Anything done in, or in relation to, the proceeding before 14 October 2024 by the AAT is taken, after that time, to have been done by the Tribunal: item 24 of Part 5 of Schedule 16 to the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Act 2024 (Cth).
On 11 December 2024, this application for review was constituted to me.[3] Having reviewed all of the available material, I am satisfied that this proceeding has continued in a manner that is efficient and fair.
[3] I was also constituted the related application for review lodged by the applicant’s brother. His application for review has the separate Tribunal number 2313832.
The Tribunal received email correspondence sent on behalf of the applicant on 14 January 2025. It says, among other things, that:
a.the applicant relies on his previous statements and submissions given in support of his remittal application;
b.the applicant relies upon the oral evidence of his father given to the previously constituted Tribunal on 28 March 2022, and that his father cannot provide evidence to me because of his health issues;
c.the applicant’s sister, [Ms A], is presently in Australia having migrated with her family in August 2024, but that the applicant is estranged from his sister, has no direct communication with her and is unaware of her visa particulars.
The applicant appeared before me on 23 January 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Rohingya and English languages and his representative was also in attendance. She gave oral submissions during the hearing.
In a separate, but related, application for review, the applicant’s brother also appeared before me in person to give evidence on 22 January 2025. He was represented by the same representative as the applicant. Written submissions referred to the overlap between the brothers’ applications and evidence and submitted that identity documents supporting their Rohingya identity were relevant to both.[4] I agree. To the extent that each applicant has given supporting and corroborative evidence about their shared claims, I have taken their evidence into account and weighed it in their favour. There have also been minor inconsistencies or discrepancies in evidence between the applicant and his brother. It is natural that two people may present slightly different accounts or versions of the same events, and that their perception of an event will be influenced by factors like their age, education and their own lived experiences. Unless I have said otherwise in these written reasons, they have been about trivial details such as whether a family member’s house was fully destroyed in a fire or only partially destroyed. I have not given these minor differences any weight.
[4] Email from the applicants’ representative to the Tribunal received on 14 January 2025. This submission also includes evidence of the applicant’s marriage in Australia to an Australian citizen and evidence about the birth of the applicant’s two children in Australia.
Whilst applicants for review in their own right, the applicant and his brother have presented substantially the same claims and evidence. They have the same legal representative, and their written submissions invite me to consider the totality of the evidence that they have presented. It is appropriate that I do this. Whilst I have produced a separate decision record and statement of reasons for the applicant and his brother, understanding this background helps explain why my two separate decisions records read so similar. Before reaching each decision, I have considered the individual and cumulative evidence that is before me in each case.
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 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.
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.
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’).
I have 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 (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
I have considered, amongst other sources, DFAT Country Information Report: Bangladesh (2022), DFAT Country Information Report: Myanmar (2022) and DFAT Country Information Report: Myanmar (2019).
FINDINGS AND REASONS
Determining an applicant’s identity, country of citizenship and receiving country for the purposes of the Migration Act is not usually a contentious process. In the circumstances of this case, however, I am presented with two different, and irreconcilable, versions.
In one version, the applicant was born in Myanmar and is a stateless Rohingya along with parents, brother and sisters. He left Myanmar and went to Bangladesh with his family where they have established a secret life using false documents.
There is another version in which the applicant and his family are Bangladeshi citizens and not stateless Rohingya from Myanmar. He is well educated and attended college or university in Bangladesh. Members of his family are well educated, married, and have, or have held, prominent positions of employment. Members of his family have travelled internationally and have been able to depart and re-enter Bangladesh using Bangladeshi passports.
On balance, the weight of evidence points to the applicant, his brother and his family being Bangladeshi citizens and not stateless Rohingya from Myanmar.
Is the applicant a stateless Rohingya from Myanmar or a citizen of, and from, Bangladesh
The applicant has claimed to be a stateless Rohingya who lived undocumented in Myanmar before moving to Bangladesh. Without repeating all of it in full, there is evidence before me which supports this claim.
For example, the applicant and his brother have consistently claimed to be stateless Rohingya. They have each provided oral evidence to me in English but also through an interpreter using the Rohingya and English languages.
There are written statements and emails from the applicant’s family, including his [sister] [Ms B].
In 2017, the applicant provided certified copies of documents purporting to be his father’s identity document and household registration issued in Myanmar. The household document includes the applicant as a member of the family household.
In 2021, the AAT (differently constituted) received documents purporting to be the applicant’s paternal uncle’s temporary identity card and his paternal grandmother’s national identity card issued by the Burmese government.
In 2022, the applicant’s father gave oral evidence to the AAT (differently constituted). He spoke about his family being stateless Rohingya from Myanmar and that the identity and household registration documents relating to his family’s time in Myanmar were genuine.
It is also well accepted there is a large Rohingya population living in Myanmar, particularly in Rakhine State. The exact number is not known following events of mass displacement and exclusion from official census. According to the 2019 report from DFAT:[5]
a.Official figures of the size of the national Rohingya population are not available, as this group was excluded from the 2014 census on the basis that their ethnicity was not recognised. However, the census used mapping data to estimate the size of the population not counted in Rakhine State. This mapping process indicated that approximately 1.1 million people were ‘not counted because they were not allowed to self-identify using a name that is not recognised by the government’. This estimate is broadly in line with most credible estimates of the Rohingya population in Rakhine State before the August 2017 violence. The UN Fact-Finding Mission estimated that at September 2018, between 200,000 and 240,000 Rohingya remained in the northern townships of Rakhine State (including around 5,000, of the former 40,000 population in Rathedaung), and 360,000 in central Rakhine (of these, 129,000 are confined in IDP camps). In addition, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reported more than 900,000 Rohingya remained in Bangladesh at the end of 2018 (for further information on the Rohingya population in Bangladesh, see DFAT’s Country Information Report on Bangladesh, published on 2 February 2018). Up to 6,000 Rohingya were reported to be stranded on the ‘zero line’ on the Myanmar side of the border in February 2018.
[5] DFAT Country Information Report: Myanmar (2019) at para [3.7].
The U.K. Home Office also reports:[6]
·The Rohingya are self-identified minority of around 60,000 residing predominately in Myanmar’s northern Rakhine State. The majority are Sunni Muslim. There are estimated to be around 140,000 Rohingya living in displacement camps in Rakhine State following violence in 2012. Security operations in Rakhine State in 2017, described by the UN and international governments as ethnic cleansing, forced over 700,000 Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh where they remain in refugee camps in Cox’s Bazar with limited prospects of safe return to Myanmar.
[6] U.K. Home Office; Country policy and information note: Rohingya including Rohingya in Bangladesh, Burma, June 2023.
Depending upon a person’s particular circumstances, Rohingya living in Myanmar may also have limited access to official identity and citizenship documents. By way of a summary:[7]
a.National Registration Cards (NRC’s) were issued to many Rohingya prior to the late 1980s. These cards identified the holder as a Burmese citizen.
b.The system of issuing and NRC was replaced with Citizenship Scrutiny Cards (CSC’s) from 1989. This new process involved a ‘citizenship scrutiny’ exercise and very few cards were actually issued to Rohingya.
c.A system of issuing Temporary Residence Cards (TRC’s) to Rohingya commenced in 1995. These cards were later deemed invalid leaving Rohingya undocumented and effectively stateless. TAC’s were revoked in 2015 and replaced with a Temporary Approval Card (TAC), however the legal basis for TAC’s is unclear and it does not confer any citizenship rights.
[7] DFAT Country Information Report: Myanmar (2022) at para [5.29]; U. .K. Home Office; Country policy and information note: Rohingya including Rohingya in Bangladesh, Burma, June 2023, para [8.2].

Household list (or registration) documents are also required throughout Myanmar, although the cost, form and process may vary from area to area.[8] Births, deaths, marriages and household relocation are all recorded, with household documents necessary in order to access identity documents, school enrolment, basic services including health, electricity and water, marriage and also travel permissions.[9]
[8] DFAT Country Information Report: Myanmar (2022), para [5.30].
[9] DFAT Country Information Report: Myanmar (2022), para [5.30] – [5.31].
DFAT also reports that Rohingya, as with all people living in Bangladesh, may have access to false passports which could ostensibly demonstrate Bangladeshi citizenship. Such documents may be either entirely fraudulent or be documents genuinely issued by the relevant authorities but fraudulently obtained.[10]
[10] DFAT Country Information Report: Bangladesh (2022), para [5.37].
I have placed some weight upon all of the evidence corroborating the applicant’s claim to be a stateless Rohingya from Myanmar.
However, the overall reliability of the applicant’s evidence is affected by inconsistencies, contradictions, the degree to which it has changed over time and as well as the timing of the changes.
He first claimed to have fled Myanmar in about the year 2000 with his brother and to have left his parents and sisters in Arakan, Myanmar. It was an elaborate claim that included his family owning [farms] in Myanmar, some of which were said to have been confiscated by the authorities in 2006 which impacted his families ability to subsist. This evidence changed over time, particularly in response to various concerns about his evidence being raised. His statutory declaration dated 26 April 2017 says that he wants to ‘revise some of the information’ previously and that he is sorry for not giving correct information previously.
I do not accept that the applicant provided false evidence and claims about when he fled Myanmar, where his parents and sisters were living at that time, where and when he went to school in Bangladesh, or that his family had land confiscated by authorities in Myanmar because he was scared for their safety and status from living unlawfully in Bangladesh. He has consistently claimed to be a stateless Rohingya who, along with his brother, was living in Bangladesh. By itself, this claim invites attention and investigation of the applicant’s circumstances. If he genuinely thought information about his application would be shared with Bangladeshi authorities, it seems odd that he claimed to have travelled to Australia from Bangladesh instead of just saying that he fled to Australia from Myanmar.
Even if I accepted that his parents held NICs without a genuine or legitimate basis for doing so, which, for the avoidance of doubt I do not, the claim cannot be reconciled with his other family members living in Bangladesh who have invited scrutiny of her own circumstances at different points in time. For example, his sister [Ms A] applied for an Australian visa and underwent interviewing and vetting as a part of that process. Her personal circumstances as a stateless Rohingya are similar to the applicant’s, yet, according to credible information,[11] she was assessed by the Special Branch of Bangladesh Police as a part of her visa application process. In considering his sister’s circumstances, I do not accept that [Ms A]’s marriage or employment provided her with access to Bangladeshi documents that other members’ of the applicant’s family did not have, as there is no basis to believe that her marriage or employment with a hospital provided her with such access. The applicant could not explain, for example, why the applicant’s employer would arrange official identity documents for her that were not genuine. Nor do I accept the applicant’s speculation that she might have paid bribes. It concerns me that the applicant’s family would invite this level of scrutiny on the one hand, but that the applicant would be too fearful to identify his family as living in Bangladesh on the other hand.
[11] Identity Assessment Report (IAR), page 16.
Australian officials in Bangladesh conducted a site visit on 5 June 2015 in order to determine the applicant’s true identity. The outcome of this visit is already summarised in other documents, including the delegate’s decision, and it is unnecessary to set it out again in full. It is enough to say that the officials met in person with the applicant’s father and his sister [Ms A]. The officials were either told or given information that indicated that: the applicant and [Ms A] completed higher education in Bangladesh; [Ms A] was interviewed and vetted by the Department of Home Affairs for an Australian visa that she previously held and travelled to Australia on; and the applicant’s mother’s was the owner of an apartment complex in Bangladesh. The applicant’s father presented National Identity Cards for himself and the applicant’s mother and, when asked about his Bangladeshi passport, said that he had last returned to Bangladesh a long time ago and does not remember where it is now.
Taken at face value, this information is highly probative of the applicant being a Bangladeshi citizen.
The applicant has sought to minimise the strength of this evidence by saying that his family’s circumstances in Bangladesh are based upon a lie and that they have no legal basis to be there. I do not accept the applicant’s evidence about this.
The evidence does not suggest to me that the applicant’s father and sister were scared, intimidated or mistrusting of the Australian officials when they conducted their site visit. It seems that they voluntarily cooperated and provided the documents that they had to hand when requested to do so. I accept that a copy the applicant’s father’s passport was not presented, but I prefer the record of the father’s spontaneous explanation given at the time of the visit, which is that he did not know where it was, over the later claim that he did not have one.
I have reflected on the communication sent by the applicant’s sister, [Ms B], after the visit that sought to portray her family’s evidence given during the visit in a different light, but I do not find her communication, or the applicant’s evidence about this, persuasive. I accept that, at times, his evidence seeks to portray a different narrative of the events, but he is also recorded as saying words to the effect of ‘I was very happy to show documents to Australian officials when they visited and requested them because I thought they were coming to relocate us to Australia’. When invited to comment on this information during the hearing, the applicant restated that his mother and father were confused and were not thinking about ‘these things’. However, the evidence suggests to me that the applicant’s father was not confused about the purpose of the site visit at the time it was made. It suggests to me that he voluntarily cooperated with the officials by answering their questions truthfully and by providing them with copies of genuine documents. He did all of this in the belief it would assist with his son’s relocation to Australia, and possibly even that of his family.
The applicant’s identity was investigated by a specialist identity team within the Department of Home Affairs. An Identity Assessment Report (the ‘IAR’) dated 20 July 2016 was produced. It is discussed extensively in the delegate’s decision and a copy was given to the applicant by the AAT (differently constituted) under s 424A of the Migration Act as it then was. I also invited the applicant to comment on aspects of the IAR during the course of his hearing with me.
The outcome of the IAR speaks for itself. It has been summarised in the delegate’s decision and in the AAT’s decision (differently constituted). It is unnecessary to set it out again in detail. Suffice to say, it raised a number of significant concerns in relation to the applicant’s claimed identity and the reliability of his evidence more generally. It raised concerns across a broad range of areas including where he was educated and to what level; where he was employed; whether his claimed employment was consistent with claimed level of education; his use of social media including his own profile information, the people that he was connecting with and their own social media posts;
The IAR also includes copies of documents given to Australian officials in support of [Ms A]’s application for an Australian visa. She provided a birth certificate that records her birthplace as Dhaka and parents’ nationality as Bangladesh. It includes a copy of the biographical page of [Ms A]’s passport that records her birthplace as Dhaka and her own nationality as Bangladeshi. It also includes a copy of her Bachelor of [Subject] from the [University]. I am not prepared to accept that these are genuine documents issued on a false basis, either through her husband, because of her employment with a [workplace] or through the payment of bribes. This evidence is too improbable, particularly when considered against the more probable likelihood that the documents were all genuinely issued on the basis of the applicant’s sister (like the rest of her family) being a Bangladeshi citizen. It is a finding more consistent with country information which also indicates that Rohingya are not eligible for Bangladesh citizenship, including through marriage, and are not legally entitled to work.[12]
[12] DFAT Country Information Report: Bangladesh (2019), para [3.22]; DFAT Country Information Report: Bangladesh (2022), para [3.22].
The presentation of Bangladeshi NICs for the applicant’s father and his mother is also concerning. On balance, I am not persuaded that the documents are outright fraudulent or that they are genuine documents obtained on a fraudulent basis. The explanation proffered is that his family were able to acquire the documents as part of a government led process happening in 2007 ahead of elections to be held in 2008. Put simply, it is said that government officials were registering voters at their homes and, at the same time, running a parallel process to issue identity documents.
I have reflected on the applicant’s evidence about this, including the country information cited in his brother’s written submission dated 7 June 2022. It supports his claim that a process for issuing NIDs was happening in parallel with voter registration ahead of the 2008 election.
It does not support the proposition that rigorous background checks or the provision of documents, such as birth certificates or other identity documents, were not required during the registration process.
The applicant’s brother’s written submission, citing a report from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada titled ‘Bangladesh: National Identity (NID) Card; its use as a voter’s identity card; procedures to obtain one’ identifies issues with the paper voter identity card used prior to 2008 including that it was susceptible to fraud. The NIC was a means of combating fraud and fake voters in the electoral role.
The same report cited above highlights just how important an NIC is in Bangladesh. It describes an NIC as being ‘essential to obtain 22 governmental and business services, including opening bank accounts, buying or selling land, obtaining passport, getting connected to utilities, telephones, internet and cable, obtaining trade licenses, registering marriages, registering for public exams and obtaining government allowances, among others.’
Even accepting that the first step in the process involved door-to-door visits by the Bangladesh Electoral Commission, and that this was followed by a person’s attendance at a registration centre at a later date, the same report above still indicates that the second step involved being photographed and completing the registration process at a centre organised and managed by Bangladesh’s Armed Forces.
It is therefore improbable, and not supported by the available country information, that NICs would be issued to household residents without a rigorous identity verification process. This casts serious doubt on the applicant’s family’s ability to obtain NICs in the circumstances that he has claimed. It leads me to conclude that the applicant’s family members were able to present genuine NICs because they had established their genuine identity and were lawfully entitled to have them.
The applicant has also provided his father’s household registration document from Myanmar. I have concerns about the providence of this and the timing of it becoming available.
At the outset, the applicant claimed to have no identity documents because he was never issued any. This changed when he submitted documents to the AAT (differently constituted) purporting to identity him as a person living in Rakhine State as a part of his father’s household. Whilst there is some truth to the applicant saying that this document was not issued ‘to him’, in the broader context of the applicant being asked for documentary evidence supporting his claim to be a stateless Rohingya from Myanmar, it is disingenuous to suggest that he was never issued any documents that could help establish this.
Despite claiming to have no documents, the applicant produced his father’s household registration document at the most opportune time. It was only after strong concerns were raised about the applicant’s evidence stemming from the site visit conducted in Bangladesh and the conclusions in the IAR, and at the same time as the applicant acknowledged significant parts of his evidence was not true, that the document was submitted. I do not accept that the documents were located before this but that it took some time for the applicant to receive them. The timing of all this concerns me.
I am not prepared to accept that the applicant’s father travelled to Bangladesh with his family and left his household registration documents behind in Myanmar with other family members. Whilst it is reasonable that a person fleeing from one country to another may not take identity documents that would, if found, put them at risk of being harmed or expelled, it is not the most probable or likely explanation in the circumstances of this case. Nor is it probable or likely that the applicant’s father forgot where his documents were left for safekeeping or that they were unable to be found, which is the explanation given for why they were not produced earlier. The discovery of these long-lost documents in the remains of a house that caught fire, notwithstanding the applicant’s father’s attempts to find them earlier, and at the very time the applicant’s claims and evidence was receiving strong scrutiny, is a co-incidence that I am not willing to accept exists.
Further evidence includes identity documents for the applicant’s paternal uncle and grandmother said to have been issued by authorities in Myanmar. When I reflect on the changing nature of the applicant’s evidence and its overall credibility and reliability, I am not prepared to accept that these are genuine documents.
Before reaching this conclusion, I have reflected on the AAT’s (differently constituted) request for document examination and verification and its results. I have also considered the documents in light of country information setting out that document fraud is highly prevalent in Myanmar, that documents can be purchased with ease and that certain documents, including household registration lists, National Registration Cards and National Verification Cards are all subject to significant fraud.[13]
[13] DFAT Country Information Report: Myanmar (2022), para [5.36].
According to DFAT, documents from Bangladesh are also difficult to verify. Verification of certain documents in Bangladesh, even when it is possible to do so, is not necessarily an indication that the document is genuine.[14]
Identity and receiving country
[14] DFAT Country Information Report: Bangladesh (2022), para [5.27].
I find that the applicant’s identity includes the name [Name] and the date of birth [Date]. However, the strength of my concerns regarding the reliability of his evidence means that I do not accept that he is a stateless Rohingya from Myanmar. I find that he is a citizen of Bangladesh and that Bangladesh is his receiving country for the purposes of the Migration Act.
History and personal circumstances of the applicant
The applicant is a citizen of Bangladesh. He attended school and higher education in Bangladesh. He was employed in Bangladesh. His parents own property in Bangladesh. His sisters attended higher education and hold, or have held, prominent and respectable positions of employment in Bangladesh. His family members have travelled internationally and his sister has used a Bangladeshi passport to travel to Australia. His family members have travelled internationally and returned to Bangladesh in the past, including his father[15] and a sister.
[15] I have not accepted that the applicant or members of his family are stateless Rohingya. It follows that I have not accepted that the applicant’s father travelled internationally using false or non-genuine Bangladeshi documents. It further follows that I do not accept that his father had a false passport that was confiscated and/or that he was expelled or required to leave [Country] (or any other country).
I am also prepared to accept that the applicant is a Muslim, as are members of his family.
A stateless Rohingya from Myanmar
I do not accept that the applicant is a stateless Rohingya from Myanmar, or that Myanmar is his country of reference or receiving country for the purposes of the Migration Act.
As Myanmar is not the applicant’s country of reference or receiving country, it is unnecessary to consider his claims against Myanmar any further.
For the avoidance of any doubt, however, I do not accept that the applicant has previously lived (either lawfully or unlawfully) in Myanmar. It follows that I do not accept that the applicant has experienced the threats, harm or mistreatment in Myanmar that he has claimed, or that he would face a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant for any of the reasons that he has claimed, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
A Muslim male living in Bangladesh
I do not accept that the applicant and his family have lived in fear of their Rohingya identities being exposed in Bangladesh. I do not accept that the applicant, or members of his family, have been harmed, threatened or extorted because of their actual or perceived Rohingya ethnicity. I do not accept that the applicant, or any member of his family, has experienced politically motivated harm. I do not accept the applicant’s sister’s written evidence, set out her email dated 12 June 2016, regarding her family’s history of threats and abuse based on their Rohingya ethnicity.
I do not accept that the applicant, or his family more broadly, needed to relocate houses because people would find out they were Rohingya and target them for harm. I do not accept that the applicant’s family’s home was ransacked, that his family were locked in a room or that his father and brother were beaten. I do not accept that the applicant was stopped and threatened by three men when he out walking in the street, or that he was assaulted, threatened, abducted or held for ransom during an incident in 2010.
The applicant’s claims are premises upon him being a stateless Rohingya from Myanmar. I have not accepted the premise of that claim. Instead, I find that he is a Bangladeshi citizen.
He has no political profile and I find that he has not experienced any politically motivated harm in the past.
He is a Muslim male, but approximately 89% of the Bangladeshi population is Sunni Muslim.[16] I find that he has not experienced any religiously motivated harm in the past.
[16] DFAT Country Information Report: Bangladesh (2022), para [3.33].
He will return, or be returned, to Bangladesh as a person who has lived in Australia for a modest period of time and who has had their application for a refugee visa refused. According to DFAT, most returnees, including failed asylum seekers, are unlikely to face adverse attention during their return regardless of whether they have returned voluntarily or involuntarily. The country has a very large diaspora and strong outward migration culture, and large numbers of Bangladeshi enter and exit the country each year for employment purposes. Authorities in Bangladesh lack the interest or capacity to check or monitor everyone.[17]The applicant does not, and will not, have a profile that changes the chance or risk of him being a person of interest.
Conclusions
[17] DFAT Country Information Report: Bangladesh (2022), para [5.24] – [5.26].

Whilst I acknowledge the corroborative material that is presented, I find that the applicant is not a witness of truth. His oral, written and documentary evidence has been significantly undermined and changed over time. The evidence presented by the applicant is not reliable and the strength of my concerns expressed above are simply too great.
Considering all of the available evidence, I find that the applicant does not face a real chance of serious harm, or a real risk of significant harm, in Bangladesh, now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. I am not satisfied that he is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act.
The applicant has a biological brother in Australia who has also applied for a protection visa. The applicant is [Age] years of age, does not usually reside in his brother’s household and is not dependent upon him. They are not members of same family unit for the purposes of reg 1.12(4) of the Regulations. The applicant does not satisfy s 36(2) of the Migration Act 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
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Date of hearing: 23 January 2025
Representative: Ms Maria Psihogios