1619317 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Vietnamese national. The applicant contended that he faced a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to Vietnam, based on two grounds: his membership of a particular social group comprising individuals returning to Vietnam with a drug conviction from Australia, and his membership of a particular social group of ex-employees of a Vietnamese company who owe money to that company. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either under the refugee definition or the complementary protection provisions.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claim regarding his Australian drug conviction, noting that he had been convicted of cultivating and possessing cannabis and received a community correction order. The applicant submitted he feared harm from Vietnamese authorities due to this conviction. However, the Tribunal had regard to country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which indicated that Vietnam applies the principle of double jeopardy, meaning individuals convicted overseas who have completed their sentences cannot be retried in Vietnam for the same offence. Furthermore, the Department was unaware of any cases of double jeopardy or mistreatment of individuals returning to Vietnam for cannabis cultivation offences committed overseas. The applicant also raised concerns about potential difficulties in finding employment and social alienation due to his conviction, but the Tribunal found these submissions lacked sufficient evidential support.

The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claim concerning his status as an ex-employee owing money to a Vietnamese company. However, the Tribunal found the applicant's evidence on this ground lacked credibility and was inconsistent. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution on either ground, nor did it find substantial grounds to believe there was a real risk of significant harm upon his removal to Vietnam. The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.