1612118 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Vietnamese national, sought a protection visa in Australia. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, and if not, whether he was entitled to complementary protection. The case was heard by Michael Hawkins, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether he would suffer significant harm if returned to Vietnam. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider if the applicant's claims of being a supporter of anti-communist blogs, being a victim of immigration fraud, and being a returnee from the West, established a real risk of persecution or significant harm. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's credibility and the availability of protection within Vietnam.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It applied the principles outlined in s.36(2B)(b) of the Migration Act 1958, which states that there is not a real risk of significant harm if an applicant could obtain protection from an authority of the country such that the risk of harm would be reduced to less than a "real risk." The Tribunal considered relevant country information and policy guidelines. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of past political views and fear of repercussions due to immigration fraud, the Tribunal was not satisfied that these claims established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Vietnam, particularly in light of the potential for protection within Vietnam.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, meaning the applicant was not granted a protection visa.