1514487 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by a person from Vietnam. The applicant claimed to fear harm upon return to Vietnam due to an adverse profile stemming from a 2012 drug conviction, compounded by his wife's 2015 drug conviction. He also alleged hostility from his wife's family, who he claimed had previously attempted to kidnap their daughter and sought to remove her from his custody, and that this family would manipulate authorities to have him detained in a compulsory drug rehabilitation centre. The applicant's claims were considered by the Tribunal, which had regard to country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically concerning a well-founded fear of persecution due to membership of a particular social group, and whether complementary protection was available under section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm. The applicant's submissions also raised concerns about his imputed political opinion and his status as an unlawful non-citizen and returnee from another country. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims in light of the relevant provisions of the Act, including definitions of "well-founded fear of persecution" and "significant harm," and Ministerial Direction No. 56.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa. While acknowledging the applicant's drug conviction and his wife's subsequent conviction, the Tribunal did not find that these circumstances, or the alleged hostility from his wife's family, gave rise to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The Tribunal also considered the possibility of complementary protection, but concluded that there were no substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.