The Tribunal proceeding
4 The Tribunal considered whether the applicant met the criteria in s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act), on the basis of being a refugee, or the criteria in s 36(2)(aa), on the basis of there being substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia, there is a real risk that he would suffer significant harm.
5 The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claims in their entirety on the basis that the applicant was not a credible witness and that documents relied upon by him in support of his claims were not authentic.
6 In respect of credit, the Tribunal found the applicant to be "an unsatisfactory witness", that "[h]is answers to questions seeking specific details of his activities and experiences were frequently vague and rambling", that he tended to refer to the general political situation in Bangladesh rather than speak of his own situation and that his evidence was variously "internally inconsistent", "evasive and lacking in credible detail" and reflected "exaggerated or fabricated claims about having been the victim of political motivated violence": Tribunal's reasons at [14]-[15], [18], [28]-[29]. At [32], the Tribunal held:
…the applicant's evidence was not believable. He did not provide a spontaneous and coherent account of the relevant events, as might reasonably be expected from a person who was recounting his actual experiences. As noted above, his evidence was hesitant, and appeared to have been made up as he went along.
7 In respect of the applicant's documents, the Tribunal held that two letters purportedly written by the applicant's colleagues in the Bangladesh Jatiyatabadi Olama Dal were lacking in significant detail (at [21]), were of implausible origin (at [22]-[23]) and were in certain respects inconsistent with the applicant's own evidence (at [24]). On the basis of these deficiencies and country information concerning the prevalence of document fraud in Bangladesh, the Tribunal held that the letters did "not provide independent corroboration of the applicant's account, nor … serve to overcome deficiencies in the applicant's account" (at [25]-[26]).
8 As a consequence of these findings, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's claims, including:
(1) that he participated in a large political demonstration on 6 April 2013, which marked the start of his problems in Bangladesh: Tribunal's reasons at [15]-[16];
(2) that he had a leadership role within the Bangladesh Jatiyatabadi Olama Dal and was politically involved with that organisation: Tribunal's reasons at [17]-[19];
(3) that he had been targeted for harm or harmed by the Awami League: Tribunal's reasons at [27]-[29]; and
(4) that there was a "false case" against him involving the death of an Awami League member, in respect of which he was wanted by law enforcement authorities: Tribunal's reasons at [30]-[33].
9 The Tribunal was also not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution, or that there was a real risk that he faced significant harm, by reason of his religion or religious views: Tribunal's reasons at [34].