1708434 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Vietnamese national. The applicant's initial claim of fear of harm from his stepfather was abandoned, and a new claim based on political opinion was advanced shortly before the hearing. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, and if not, whether he was entitled to complementary protection.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant held a genuine fear of persecution based on political opinion, and if not, whether he qualified for complementary protection. This involved assessing the credibility of the applicant's revised claims, particularly the timing and motivation behind the new assertion of political activity, which post-dated the delegate's decision. The Tribunal also had to consider country information regarding the outlawed nature of the political party, the monitoring of social media, and the harassment, arrests, detention, and convictions of its members.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's explanation for the timing and motivation of his political activity was unconvincing, suggesting it was conducted for the purpose of strengthening his claim rather than out of genuine political conviction or fear. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the refugee criterion. However, upon considering the complementary protection criterion, the Tribunal was satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, taking into account country information regarding the risks faced by members of the opposition party and the lack of state protection or relocation possibilities.

The Tribunal ordered that the decision under review be remitted for reconsideration.