1617666 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a woman who arrived in Australia from Vietnam in March 2011, along with her husband and two children, who were also applicants. The applicant initially claimed to fear harm as a homeless child in Vietnam. Subsequent claims included fear of harm due to her Catholic religion, imputed political opinion against the government, disclosure of personal information by the Department, and being a failed asylum seeker who departed Vietnam without lawful authority. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered these claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 56 and relevant Departmental policy and country information.

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) (the Act) by having a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act by coming within Australia's complementary protection obligations due to a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also considered the claims made on behalf of the applicant's children.

The Tribunal found significant credibility issues with the applicant's claims, particularly concerning inconsistencies in her stated date of birth across various documents and her initial statements. While accepting her Vietnamese birth certificate indicated she was born on a particular date and was a certain age, the Tribunal was not satisfied that her claims regarding persecution based on her Catholic religion or imputed political opinion were substantiated. The Tribunal noted that while the practice of Catholicism in Vietnam is rigidly controlled, the applicant did not provide evidence of personal involvement in activities that would place her at risk. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence to support claims of a data breach or that she was a failed asylum seeker facing persecution. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Australia did not have protection obligations towards any of the applicants.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act, nor the related criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c).