1710937 (Refugee)

The applicants, a man and his wife from Hue, Vietnam, along with their two Australian-born children, sought protection visas. The husband claimed he had borrowed money for his wife's uncle to use as security for a previous visa, which was subsequently overstayed and the bond forfeited. He alleged that he had paid interest but not the principal, leading to threats of violence from the lenders, and expressed a fear of harm from gangsters if returned to Vietnam. The wife did not have independent protection claims and relied on her husband's case as part of his family unit.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) (well-founded fear of persecution) or section 36(2)(aa) (complementary protection). This required the Tribunal to assess the credibility of the applicant's claims and determine if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Vietnam, there was a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also considered relevant policy guidelines and country information assessments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be vague and contradictory. While acknowledging the potential for harm from creditors in Vietnam, it was not satisfied that the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons outlined in section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that there were not substantial grounds for believing that the applicants faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, particularly in light of the possibility of relocation within Vietnam or the availability of protection from authorities, which the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated to be unavailable.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas, finding that they did not satisfy the criteria under either section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Act. As a result, they were also unable to satisfy the criteria under sections 36(2)(b) or (c), precluding the grant of the visa.