1605592 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Vietnam, sought review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) to affirm the Minister's refusal to grant him a protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared persecution in Vietnam on the basis of his Catholicism, alleging he was a member of a particular social group and that he held an imputed political opinion. He also raised concerns about the potential for forcible separation from his family and the psychological harm this might cause, arguing these circumstances engaged the complementary protection provisions.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the RRT had erred in its assessment of the applicant's claims regarding persecution as a member of a particular social group and on the basis of imputed political opinion. Further, the court was required to consider whether the RRT had adequately addressed the applicant's claims concerning forcible family separation and the resulting psychological harm, and whether these constituted grounds for protection under the complementary protection provisions. The court also considered the RRT's approach to an expert witness report, particularly in light of the applicant's failure to make the expert available for questioning, and the application of section 424A of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) in relation to information that might lead to affirming the decision under review.

The court found that the RRT had not erred in its assessment of the applicant's claims regarding his membership in a particular social group or his imputed political opinion. It was held that the RRT had properly considered the evidence and applied the relevant legal principles. Regarding the complementary protection claims, the court determined that the RRT had failed to adequately consider the potential for forcible separation from the applicant's family and the psychological harm that might ensue, finding that these were necessary and foreseeable consequences of removal. The court also addressed the weight to be given to the expert opinion, noting that the applicant's failure to make the expert available for questioning was a relevant factor.

The court set aside the RRT's decision and remitted the matter to the RRT for redetermination according to law.