1710340 (Refugee)

The case involved an applicant seeking a protection visa, with his wife initially a co-applicant. The dispute centred on whether the applicants faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Vietnam, particularly concerning alleged threats from illegal lenders and discrimination against their ethnic and religious minority status. The matter was heard by a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the first applicant qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and, if not, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Vietnam, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal also had to determine its jurisdiction concerning the second applicant.

The Tribunal found that due to the death of the second applicant, it lacked jurisdiction to make a decision in her matter. Regarding the first applicant, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of threats from illegal lenders, corruption within Vietnamese authorities, and discrimination against his ethnic and religious minority status. However, it found the evidence regarding the size and terms of the alleged loan, and the lack of enforcement action by the lenders, to be implausible. While acknowledging the possibility of low-level discrimination, the Tribunal concluded that this did not amount to significant harm. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant was employed and receiving adequate medical treatment in Australia.