1710986 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Vietnam. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in Vietnam due to his religious beliefs (Catholic and Buddhist) and an imputed political opinion related to avoiding compulsory military service. The applicant also raised concerns about his education, employment history, and a previous period in a re-education camp, as well as a prior illegal departure from Vietnam, which he feared would lead to arrest upon return. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the applicant's claims and evidence presented during a hearing conducted with the assistance of an interpreter.

The primary legal issues before the AAT were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion or imputed political opinion in Vietnam, as defined by Article 1A(2) of the Refugees Convention and s. 5J of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). If the applicant did not meet the criteria for a refugee under s. 36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal was also required to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant's removal to Vietnam, there was a real risk that he would suffer significant harm, thereby meeting the complementary protection criterion under s. 36(2)(aa) of the Act. In its assessment, the Tribunal was directed to consider relevant guidelines and country information.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the Convention grounds. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards the applicant under either the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion. Therefore, the applicant failed to satisfy the criteria for the grant of a protection visa. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.