1715980 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Vietnamese national. The applicant claimed he feared returning to Vietnam due to a previous conviction for drug offences, a belief he risked re-prosecution, fear of harm from debt collectors linked to a gambling debt, and concerns about his ability to subsist due to psychological issues. The delegate had refused the visa, finding no real risk of re-prosecution and that the applicant could access treatment and employment in Vietnam. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, including the complementary protection criterion under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act, which requires a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 56, relevant policy guidelines, and country information. While accepting the applicant suffered from mental health issues, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the claim of a real risk of re-prosecution for drug offences in Vietnam, noting that the Vietnamese government typically does not re-examine returning citizens with criminal records. The Tribunal also found no credible evidence of a risk of harm from debt collectors or that the applicant would be unable to subsist in Vietnam due to his psychological condition, particularly given his family ties and past work experience. The Tribunal gave little weight to purported verbal advice from Vietnamese lawyers regarding double jeopardy, as no further evidence was provided despite a request.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a real risk of significant harm upon return to Vietnam. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the grant of a protection visa.