1510475 (Refugee)

[2017] AATA 769

1510475 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 769 (27 April 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

CASE NUMBER:  1510475

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Vietnam

MEMBER:Roslyn Smidt

DATE:27 April 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 27 April 2017 at 10:54am

CATCHWORDS

Refugee – Protection visa – Vietnam – Religion – Catholic – Credibility issues – Delay in protection application – Catholicism recognised in Vietnam

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2

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 dependant.

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant who is citizen of Vietnam applied for the visa [in] November 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa [in] July 2015.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 27 March 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

   THE RELEVANT LAW

5. 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, 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.

6. 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).

7. 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.

8. 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’).

9. In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.

   BACKGROUND

10. The applicant is a [age] year old single woman from [location] in Vietnam. Her parents and [sibling] remain in Vietnam. She holds a Vietnamese passport which is valid until 2022. The applicant graduated from [a] University in December [year]. 

11. The applicant arrived in Australia [in] August 2013 and applied for protection [in] November 2014.

12. For the first year of her stay in Australia she lived with a [relative] who had come to Australia [in] 2007 and subsequently obtained residency on [other] grounds.

    SUMMARY OF CLAIMS AND ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED

13. The applicant claims to be at risk of serious or significant harm in Vietnam because of her Catholic religion. She claims that she became a Catholic while at university in Vietnam, that she faced problems with the Vietnamese authorities when promoting her faith and that she has continued to practice her religion in Australia.  She claims that she fears returning to Vietnam because she would be at risk of detention, her right to work would be limited and she would unable to practice her religion freely or in the manner she wished.

14. The issues to be determined are whether the applicant’s claims are credible and if so whether she faces a real chance of experiencing serious or significant harm if she returns to Vietnam.

    FINDINGS OF FACT

15. For the following reasons I did not find the applicant to be a credible or a truthful witness. I do not accept that she had any involvement with the Catholic Church in Vietnam. I also find that she has exaggerated the extent and nature of her activities as a member of the church and I do not accept that she has a deep or lasting commitment to the faith.

    Delay in seeking protection

16. The applicant arrived in Australia in August 2013, but despite claiming that she had come to Australia because she had been harassed and detained because of her religion and wished to be able to practice her faith freely, she did not seek protection until November 2014.  This application, which was prepared with the assistance of a migration agent, contains very little information. It states that the applicant is a Catholic, that it is extremely difficult to practice her religion in Vietnam and that a summons had been issued against her because of her religion. It states that a detailed statement would be provided in due course. A more detailed statement was not provided until 20 April 2015.

17. When asked about these delays during the hearing she said that she had lived with her [relative] in [suburb] were there were not many Vietnamese people and only associated with people who had Australian citizenship so she knew nothing about applying for protection until she moved out a year later. I noted that her [relative] was from Vietnam and had obtained residency after arriving in Australia which suggested it would have been relatively easy for her to investigate the options open to her to obtain residency in Australia. The applicant said that her [relative] and her [relative]’s Vietnamese friends had obtained residency on [other] grounds and knew nothing about protection visas.

18. The applicant said that she first learned about the possibility of seeking protection in Australia in June 2014, but she was fearful of lodging an application because she would be seen as someone who had told the Australia government how the Vietnamese government treats Catholics. I observed that protection visa applications are confidential. The applicant said that she did not understand that at the time but later she found a lawyer who helped her and she finally lodged her application in November 2014.

19. I do not accept that the applicant failed to apply for protection for over a year after she arrived in Australia because she was unaware of the possibility of seeking protection or because she was fearful that the Vietnamese government would find out she had revealed how they treat Catholics. She is a well-educated woman who speaks some English and she lived with a [relative] who had obtained residency after arriving in Australia. She clearly had the skills and resources to obtain advice on her options and to lodge a protection application in a timely manner. I find her failure to do so a strong indication that she did not fear serious or significant harm in Vietnam when she arrived in Australia and that she has not provided an honest account of her reasons for seeking protection.

    Conversion and religious activities in Vietnam

20. According to a statutory declaration dated 20 April 2015 the applicant was born into a Buddhist family, but was not raised as a member of that faith. She considered herself an atheist until she became interested in Christianity after becoming friendly with some Christian students while at university. She completed a [course] of religious study and four years after first meeting the Christian students she was baptised at [a] Catholic Church. Her parents were not aware of her interest in Christianity prior to this and were very angry when they learned she had converted. They pressured her to revert to Buddhism, but she refused which resulted in significant conflict from then until her departure for Australia. As a result she attended church services in secret.

21. The applicant claimed that she was detained while handing out Christian material in front of the university she attended in June 2013. She was not formally charged, but she was held for [number] hours during which she was interrogated about her religious activities. A picture of Jesus was torn up by her interrogators and she was verbally assaulted. She was released after paying $[amount] and signing a letter agreeing not to continue with her religious activities.

22. Following this the applicant decided that the only way she could continue to practice her faith was to leave Vietnam so she made plans to travel to Australia on a [temporary] visa.

23. The applicant was interview by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration [in] May 2015. She confirmed the substance of her earlier claims regarding her conversion and baptism in Vietnam and added some detail.

24. The applicant explained that she had been attracted to Christianity after attending a camp with her Christian friends and observing their involvement in charitable activities. Shortly afterwards she began to study Christianity. She attended classes that were held at the church on an irregular basis and sometimes received private tuition from the priest.

25. When asked what she had learned during her study of Christianity she said that she had learned about forgiveness, to help others and to teach people to believe in God. When asked for additional detail she said that she looked for the good in people which led to forgiveness. She was aware that the teachings of Jesus were contained in the New Testament, but demonstrated little understanding of its contents. She said that Jesus was born in a cave and that he had been baptised by his mother Mary.

26. The applicant said that she had not been given a certificate of baptism and no photographs had been taken of the event because that would have been dangerous. The delegate observed that it was his understanding that there was a degree of religious tolerance in Vietnam. The applicant said that attendance at church was permitted, but not evangelising.

27. The applicant claimed that while in Vietnam she had distributed leaflets and travelled to different cities to spread Catholicism and that she had also spoken to people about the treatment of Catholics in Vietnam.

28. The applicant repeated the claim that she had been detained in June 2013 while distributing religious material. She also claimed that she had been detained on a few occasions prior to this while distributing religious material in other locations but was unable to recall when she was first detained.  She said that on the earlier occasions she had paid bribes or signed documents stating she would not distribute these materials again. When asked why she had only mentioned the June 2013 incident in her earlier submissions she said that it had been the worst and most recent event. 

29. The delegate noted that the applicant had claimed in her protection visa application that a summons had been issued against her in Vietnam. The applicant confirmed that this was true, but said that it would be difficult to obtain a copy.

30. The delegate found that the applicant’s claims were lacking in credibility. He did not accept that she had attended church or evangelised in Vietnam or that she had been detained for distributing leaflets.

31. The applicant’s religious practices in Vietnam were discussed at the hearing. She said that she had attended services at different churches and that she had attended a course which was taught by different people including a priest and was carried out in a somewhat secret manner. She was unable to recall the name of the priest who taught her about Christianity. She said that she was no longer in touch with any of the members of her church in Vietnam because she had lost the telephone which contained their numbers. When asked, she said that she had made no attempt to contact any of the members of her church in Vietnam since arriving in Australia.

32. When asked about the problems she faced in Vietnam because of her religion the applicant said that her faith required her to pray and to preach, which was illegal in Vietnam and she had faced problems because of this, most significantly in June 2013. When asked about the problems she faced prior to June 2013 she said that she distributed books about Catholicism to children and adults in the street. She said that she took these books from her church with the permission of the priest and encouraged other church goers to do the same. She began this activity in about, late 2008 or early 2009 when she was detained overnight and released after paying a bribe. She said that she continued to engage in these activities, but only did once or twice a year because it was not allowed. She said that she usually went with a team of [people] and claimed that in order to avoid arrest they would contact the local officials and pay them a bribe in advance. She said that if no bribe was paid in advance she and the other team members would be fined or required to pay a bribe. She also claimed that she was detained for several hours in 2010.

33. I asked the applicant why she had completed a course for converts and been baptised in Australia if she had already been a practicing Catholic in Vietnam. She said that she had not been given any evidence of her baptism in Vietnam.

34. I noted that when asked about her beliefs and why she had converted by the delegate the applicant appeared to have a very limited understanding of Christianity which caused me to doubt that she had studied the faith for two years and attended services since about 2008. She said that the delegate had not asked many questions and she had made a mistake when asked about Jesus birth and baptism.      

35. I advised the applicant that based on my understanding to the practices of the Catholic Church and the problems which some Catholics faced in Vietnam I found it unlikely that she and others would have been sent out to distribute books in the manner claimed. She maintained that her claims were true.

36. I noted that the applicant had only mentioned one encounter with the police in her written statement of claims and observed that it was difficult to understand why she would have failed to mention the other occasions on which she was detained. She said that she had concentrated on the most important incident.

37. After considering all of the relevant evidence I do not accept that the applicant had any involvement with the Catholic Church prior to her departure from Vietnam.

38. In the first place, as discussed above, she failed to seek protection until over a year after she arrived in Australia. If she had genuinely feared harm in Vietnam I believe she would have sought protection as soon as possible after her arrival.

39. Secondly, when questioned about her beliefs by the delegate it was clear she had very little knowledge of Catholicism and when asked about her attendance at church and the course she had taken at the hearing she could not even recall the name of the priest involved.  If the applicant had studied Christianity for two years and attended a Catholic Church for some five years before leaving Vietnam I believe she would have had much better knowledge of the faith and would have been able to provide a reasonably detailed and convincing account of her participation in the church.

40. Thirdly, the applicant’s claim that she had to study Catholicism in secret and was not given a baptism certificate because it would have been dangerous is at odds with other evidence before me on the situation in Vietnam, including the 2013 US Department of State International Religious Freedom Report. According to these reports Catholicism is not banned in Vietnam and there is nothing in the evidence before me which suggests that converts are at risk of serious or significant harm merely because they have become Catholics or that converts generally practice their faith in secret.

41. Fourth, if the applicant had already studied Catholicism and been baptised in Vietnam, there would have been no need for her to complete a course for converts or be baptised in Australia.

42. Fifth, I am not aware of any evidence which suggests that the Catholic Church in Vietnam requires or encourages Catholics to proselytise and I find the claim that the applicant distributed books on Catholicism provided by her church to random people in the street far-fetched and implausible. 

43. Finally, the applicant’s evidence regarding the problems she faced in Vietnam because of her Catholic faith was confused and contradictory. In the statutory declaration dated [in] April 2015 she said that she had been detained for [number] hours by the police in June 2013 when distributing leaflets. She told the delegate that she had been detained several times while distributing religious material, but she could not recall the first time this occurred. She said that June 2013 detention was the most serious. At the hearing she told me that she been detained three times by the police and that the first detention occurred in late 2008 or early 2009 when she was held overnight.

44. After considering all of the relevant evidence I do not accept that the applicant converted to Catholicism in Vietnam, or that she attended a Catholic Church or that she distributed books or leaflets on Catholicism or spoke to anyone about the treatment of Catholics in Vietnam. It follows that I do not accept that she was detained or experienced any other problems in Vietnam because she had become a Catholic. I find that she concocted these claims in order to obtain protection in Australia.

45. As I do not accept that the applicant had any involvement with the Catholic Church in Vietnam I also reject the claim that she had problems with her parents because of this.

    Religious practice in Australia

46. In the statement dated [in] April 2015, the applicant said that she had continued to practice her religion after arriving in Australia. She said that she attended [Church 1] where she was involved in Bible studies and undertook preaching activities and charity work every Sunday after mass.

47. During her interview with the delegate [in] May 2015, the applicant provided a number of photographs of herself at church and being presented with what appears to be a baptism certificate. She also provided a certificate of baptism and confirmation dated [in] May 2015. When asked about her religious activities in Australia she said that she attended weekly mass and social activities. When asked about the preaching and other activities mentioned in her written statement she said that she took part in activities such as rearranging the furniture after mass and spoke to people who were worried or concerned. She was asked how she knew that people were worried or concerned she said that she asked them.

1. Following the interview the applicant provided a certificate which states that she had completed a course for converts between [November] 2014 and [May] 2015.

2. The delegate found the applicant’s recent baptism and her failure to say anything about the course she claimed to have attended between November 2014 and May 2015, considered in conjunction with other problems regarding her claims cast doubt on the claim that she had converted to Christianity in Australia. Nevertheless, he accepted that she had attended the course and converted to Christianity. However, he found that she had done so not out of a genuine commitment to Catholicism but in order to strengthen her claim to be a refugee.

3. [In] March 2017, the applicant provided two statements in support of her application. One is from a woman who described herself as the applicant’s [relationship described]. It states that the author had known the applicant for three years and that she is a committed Christian and attends mass. The second is from one of the applicant’s classmates. It states, that the author had known the applicant since 2015 and claims that the applicant is a Catholic and attends church regularly.

4. At the hearing, the applicant said that she had attended a church in the city during her first year in Australia, then begun attending [Church 1]. She said that to begin with she just attended mass, but after a year she became involved in [other activities] and became involved in social events.  She also claimed that she had distributed leaflets which contained small articles about the Bible to people in the street about once a month. She collected the leaflets from the Church. Nobody had suggested or recommended that she do this but she had a strong belief in Jesus and wanted to share her faith with Jesus.  She also talked to people at the church after mass.

5. The applicant also claimed that she had participated in two public events held by the Catholic Church since arriving in Australia. In support of this claim she provided several photographs of herself at an open air event attended by a number of priests. When asked to provide additional information on these events she said that one was held to remember people who died in the war and was associated with the old government but she was unable to recall any details of the other.  She said that she had posted a photograph of herself at the latter event on [social media] and she believed that this would cause her problems if she returned to Vietnam.

6. At the beginning of the hearing the applicant provided copies of posts with religious content on a webpage with the name [name]. A number of the posts are in Vietnamese. Some relate to the Catholic Church, some to [another] Church. None of the English language posts contain material which is critical of the Vietnamese government.

7. The applicant also provided a letter of support, a friend and former roommate who stated that she had known the applicant since early 2015 and could attest to the fact that she was an active member of her church and engaged in preaching the Gospel. The author attended the hearing and confirmed the details in her statement. She said that she had been a lapsed Catholic when she met the applicant and the applicant had encouraged her to return to her faith.  When asked if she had ever accompanied the applicant when she distributed leaflets in the street or had observed her carrying out this activity the witness said that the applicant had told her about these activities but she had never accompanied her or observed her distributing leaflets.

8. During the hearing I noted that the applicant had provided letters of support from friends, but had not provided any letters of support from the priest of her church. She said that the priest was busy and she had not wanted to bother him. Following the hearing she provided a letter from Father [name] which states that the applicant had been baptised [in] May 2015 and she had attended [Church 1] since that time.

9. I advised the applicant that I accepted that the applicant had been baptised and attended [Church 1] but I had a number of concerns about the credibility of her claims regarding her involvement with the church in Vietnam and the genuineness of her conversion. I noted that she did not have the understanding of the Catholic faith which I would expect of a convert who had studied the faith and that I found the claim that she had distributed leaflets in the street implausible. The applicant maintained that her claims were true.

10. After considering all of the relevant evidence, I accept that the applicant was baptised at [Church 1] in May 2015 and that she has attended services at the church since that time. I also accept that she has attended two public events organised by the Catholic Church in Australia and that she posted a picture of herself at one of these events on [social media]. However, I do not accept that she began attending Catholic services shortly after arriving in Australia or that she attended services at [Church 1] regularly before May 2015 or that she has distributed religious leaflets to strangers in the street once a month since shortly after arriving in Australia.

11. As discussed above, I find that the applicant concocted the claim that she converted to Catholicism prior to arriving in Australia, which does not reflect well on her general credibility. There is no evidence to corroborate the claim that she attended a church in the city for a year after arriving in Australia and I do not accept that she began to attend church in Australia shortly after arriving in Australia. Furthermore, the suggestion in her original written statement that she was involved in preaching in Australia was effectively withdrawn during her interview with the delegate and her lack of knowledge of the Christian faith when asked about her beliefs by the delegate is at odds with the claims she attended Bible study at the church and had completed a course for converts less than two weeks earlier and indicates that she has exaggerated her involvement in these activities and her interest in Christianity. Finally, I find the claim that she distributed leaflets on Catholicism to strangers in the street in the city and [suburb] once a month far-fetched and implausible. There is no suggestion that this activity was required or even encouraged by the Priest or anyone else at her church and I do not accept that she would have felt compelled to engage in this activity because of her love of Jesus or because she believed it was required by her faith.

    DOES THE APPLICANT MEET THE REFUGEE CRITERIA?

    Claims relating to religion

12. As discussed above, I do not accept that the applicant converted to Christianity prior to arriving in Australia and I found much of her evidence regarding her current beliefs and activities and her commitment to the Catholic religion unconvincing. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this decision I am prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt and accept that she became a Catholic in about May 2015 and that she has attended Catholic services since that time. However, for the reasons set out below, I do not accept that she faces a real chance of experiencing serious harm amounting to persecution because of this if she returns to Vietnam.

13. At the hearing, I asked the applicant what she feared would happen to her if she returned to Vietnam. Her response was somewhat confused, but in essence she said that she feared she might be arrested, that she would not be free to practice her religion in the manner she wished and that now that she had been baptised and had a certificate to attest to this she would face problems in areas, such as employment. She also said that she feared her parents would face problems because she had converted.

14. I advised the applicant that advice from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade indicated that while some Catholics in some areas had faced problems in Vietnam, those who merely worshiped and did not engage in political or other acceptable activities were not generally at risk of serious harm. I also advised her that I was unaware of any evidence which suggested that Catholics were unable to work in Vietnam. The applicant said that she believed that ordinary Catholics were at risk of serious harm in Vietnam.

15. According to DFAT the Catholic Church is a recognised religion in Vietnam and they are not aware of credible claims of societal abuse or systemic discrimination of Catholics based on their religious practices. The note that the authorities are concerned about the potential for religious groups to be mobilised for political purposes, but assess that  Catholics in Vietnam who worship quietly and in a manner that conforms to government policies and sensitivities are able to do so with a low risk of official interference. According to the US Department of State International Religious Freedom Report for 2013 provided by the applicant, adherence to a religious group generally does not seriously disadvantage individuals in non-governmental civil, economic or secular life and practitioners of various religions are represented in local and provincial government positions. However, unofficial policies may prevent their advancement in the government military and government.

16. There is no credible evidence before me which suggests that the applicant has or wishes to or would do anything more than attend church on Sundays. In these circumstances, I do not accept that there is a real chance that she will be detained or unable to practice her religion in the manner she wishes or that she would be denied the right to work or earn a livelihood because of her religion.

17. I have also considered whether the applicant’s attendance at a Catholic Church in Australia would place her at risk of serious harm if she returned to Vietnam.  However, I am unaware of any evidence which suggests that the Vietnamese government would be aware of the fact that the applicant had converted to Christianity and attended services at a Catholic Church in Australia.  Furthermore, there is nothing in the evidence before me which suggests that a Vietnamese citizen who converted to Christianity and attended a Catholic Church while in Australia would be treated differently from Vietnamese citizens who convert to Catholicism in Vietnam. I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of experiencing serious harm on return to Vietnam because she converted to Christianity and attended Catholic Church services in Australia.

18. Finally, I have considered whether the applicant’s attendance at two public events organised by the Catholic Church in Australia or the religious articles she posted online while in Australia would place her at risk of serious harm if she returned to Vietnam.

19. The precise nature of the public events is somewhat unclear, but even if they included a political element, I do not accept that the applicant’s attendance means she faces a real chance of serious harm on return to Vietnam or that it suggests that she has any interest or intention to become involved in political activities of any kind if she returns to Vietnam. In the first place, the applicant was unable to provide a clear or coherent explanation of the nature of these events, which I find a clear indication that she was not interested in their political content or purpose, if indeed they had one. Secondly, according to the applicant she merely attended these events and the only record of her attendance appears to be a photograph which she posted on [social media]. I find that there is at best a remote chance that the Vietnamese authorities would be aware of the applicant’s attendance at these events and I am unaware of any evidence which suggests that, in the absence of a record of political involvement in Vietnam or Australia, the Vietnamese authorities would be concerned about her attendance at two public events organised by the Catholic Church. I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of facing serious harm amounting to persecution if she returns to Vietnam because she attended two public events in Australia.

20. With regard to the online posts, they were made under the name [name] and again I find it extremely unlikely that the Vietnamese authorities would be aware of their existence or that they were posted by the applicant. And in any event, there is no suggestion that they contain any criticism of the Vietnamese government or political comments of any kind and even if they were to come to the attention of the Vietnamese government, I do not accept that they would cause any problems for the applicant. I do not accept that the applicant faces a real chance of suffering serious harm on return to Vietnam because of these posts.

21. In reaching the findings set out above I have considered the reports provided by the applicant in support of her claim.  However, while they confirm the information in the DFAT report on the restrictions faced by some religious groups and the problems faced by some Catholics, particularly if they are seen as a political threat, they contain nothing which suggests that someone who practices the Catholic faith quietly and in conformity with government regulations would be at risk of serious harm in Vietnam.

    Claims relating to the applicant’s status as a failed asylum seeker

22. At the hearing, the applicant claimed that she feared that she would face serious harm on return to Vietnam because she had applied for protection and the Vietnamese authorities would be aware that she had criticised their treatment of Catholics. I observed that protection visa applications were confidential and there was no reason to suppose that the Vietnamese authorities would be aware that she had applied for protection in Australia. I also advised her that DFAT had no information to suggest that people known or believed to have sought asylum in other countries receive different treatment from the Government of Vietnam for having sought asylum. The applicant did not respond to this information.

23. There is nothing in the evidence before the Tribunal which suggests that the Vietnamese authorities would know or suspect that the applicant had applied for protection in Australia or that she had claimed that the Vietnamese authorities ill-treated Catholics in her application. In these circumstances and in light of the advice from DFAT regarding the treatment of failed asylum seekers I am not satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of experiencing serious harm on return to Vietnam because she applied for asylum in Australia.

    Conclusions

24. After considering the applicant’s claims singly and cumulatively and taking account of all the relevant evidence, I am not satisfied that there is a real chance that she will suffer serious harm amounting to persecution in the reasonably foreseeable future for a Convention reason if she returns to Vietnam and therefore I do not accept that she has a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason. 

    DOES THE APPLICANT MEET THE COMPLIMENTARY PROTECTION CRITERIA?

25. The applicant’s claim for complementary protection relies on the same claims as those put forward in her refugee application. As discussed above, I found a number of her claims lacked credibility but I accept that she converted to Catholicism while in Australia and that she had attended church services since about May 2015, that she attended two public events organised by the Catholic Church which may have involved some political content and that she has posted some religious messages on line. However, in light of my findings on the extent of the applicant’s involvement with Catholicism in Australia including the two public events, the nature of the material she posted on line and the advice from DFAT set out above, I am not satisfied that there is a real risk that she will experience significant harm for any of these reasons if she return to Vietnam.

26. After considering the applicant’s claims singly and cumulatively and taking account of all the relevant evidence, I am not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence being removed from Australia to Vietnam, there is a real risk that she will suffer significant harm

    CONCLUSIONS

27. 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 the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).

28. 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).

29. 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 the criterion in s.36(2).

    DECISION

30. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

    Roslyn Smidt
    Member