1717603 (Refugee)

1717603 (Refugee) [2018] AATA 2447 (24 May 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1717603
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Vietnam
MEMBER:Linda Symons
DATE:24 May 2018
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 24 May 2018 at 2:33pm
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Vietnam – Political opinion – Opposition to Vietnamese Government – Corruption – Arrests – Physical assault by tax officials – Police – Assault in custody – Summonses – Anti-government activities in Australia – Decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 36, 45AA, 65, 91R, 424AA, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, r 2.08

Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant, who claims to be a citizen of Vietnam, arrived in Australia by boat on 19 May 2013. On 10 December 2014, he was granted a Bridging E visa.
The applicant applied to the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) for a Protection visa on 1 July 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visa on 10 August 2015. On 17 August 2015, he applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision.
The applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa. However, by operation of s.45AA of the Act and r.2.08F of the Migration Regulations 1994, from 16 December 2014 the application is taken to be, and to have always been, a valid application for a Temporary Protection (Class XD) visa and is taken not to be, and never to have been, a valid application for a Protection (Class XA) visa.
The Tribunal invited the applicant to appear before it on 30 March 2017 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in his case. He did not attend the scheduled hearing or request a postponement of the hearing or offer any explanation for his non-attendance. The Tribunal was satisfied that he had been properly notified of the hearing date and decided to proceed to make a decision on the review. The Tribunal found that on the limited evidence before it, it was unable to be satisfied that he is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
The applicant sought judicial review of that decision before the Federal Circuit Court. On 4 August 2017, the Federal Circuit Court remitted the application to the Tribunal on the basis that the exercise of discretion conferred upon the Tribunal was exercised unreasonably in that the Tribunal mistakenly stated that the applicant had not provided the Tribunal with a telephone number and email address.
On 8 December 2017, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and invited him to appear before it on 6 February 2018 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in his case. On 21 January 2018, he sent an email to the Tribunal indicating that he required a Vietnamese interpreter for the hearing on 6 February 2018.
On 1 February 2018, the Tribunal received a letter from the applicant’s migration agent requesting a postponement of the hearing as they had insufficient time to prepare for the hearing. The Tribunal considered the request and declined to postpone the hearing. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant was given almost two months’ notice of the hearing and that this is a reasonable amount of time for him to instruct a migration agent and prepare for the hearing. Further, the Tribunal notes that this is the second time that his application for review has been listed for hearing.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 6 February 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages.
The issues that arise on review are whether Australia has protection obligations to the applicant under the Refugees Convention or under the complementary protection criterion.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a Protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s.36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, the applicant is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a Protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a Protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of a protection visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s.36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’).
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS
The applicant’s claims
The applicant did not make any claims for protection when he arrived in Australia on 19 May 2013. He was ‘screened out’ by the Department, provided with a ‘screened out’ Notice and arrangements were made for his removal from Australia.
On 13 August 2013, he made a claim for protection. His claims are summarised as follows:
·When he was in Vietnam, he opened a [business] to support his wife and children. [In] February 2013, three tax officers went to his [business], asked him some questions and told him that they had imposed a tax liability of [amount] Vietnamese dong a month. He did not agree. The three officers told him that if he did not pay the tax they would remove the sign from his [business] and not allow him to continue to work. They then left.
·One month later, the tax officers returned. He did not agree to pay the tax. The tax officers then called in another five officers and together they coerced him, removed the sign from his shop and did not allow him to work. He made a complaint to the Police Command of [District 1 in] Ha Tinh Province but did not get a response or any assistance from the local authority. He was discontent and angry and made another complaint but did not receive a response.
·After some time, he continued to work. The tax officers tried to stop him from working and confiscated his tools. He could not control himself and quarrelled and clashed with them. One of the tax officers slapped him in the face and charged him with resisting a duty officer. A few days later, he received an order to attend the tax office but did not accept it. They sent him another order. As he had no way to work and support his family, he came to Australia.
·When he first arrived in Australia he asked staff at the Department whether he had suffered persecution but did not talk about it since he was afraid of the security of himself and his family. If he is returned to Vietnam, people in the government agencies will do things that are harmful to his family and he does not know what will happen to his family. He is sad and worried that he will be returned to Vietnam.
The applicant subsequently filed an application for a Protection visa on 1 July 2014. His claims in his application for a Protection visa are summarised as follows:
·He was born on [date] in Ha Tinh Province in Vietnam and is a Vietnamese citizen. He is a Catholic of Vietnamese ethnicity.
·He is married and has a [child]. His wife [and specified family members] live in Vietnam.
·[In] February 2013, three tax officers went to his [business]. They assessed his tax liability to be [amount] Vietnamese dong (equivalent to AUD [amount]). He was asked to pay this amount in cash on the spot. He argued that his tax liability was only a quarter of what they were asking for and asked them to produce the calculation they made to reach the sum required. They refused to give him that information.
·When he refused to pay the amount requested they threatened him and told him that if he did not pay the money on the spot they would confiscate his business property and seal his shop. He told them they were not transparent in their tax evaluation and he would not pay that amount of tax. He told them he would like to complain to a higher authority about the unfair treatment. They subsequently left. On that same day he drafted a complaint and lodged it at the local Police Station.
·[In] March 2013, the same three tax officers went to his shop and demanded payment of the sum of [amount] Vietnamese dong. He told them that he had done some research on tax payable for similar businesses and did not have to pay that sum of money. He argued that the amount he was asked was out of proportion to his income but they insisted that he had to comply without any objection. They again threatened that they would forcibly shut his business and confiscate his business tools.
·He told the three tax officers that he wanted to resolve the issue in the presence of the Police. One of the tax officers named [Mr A] slapped his face, swore at him, punched him in the face and kicked him in the abdominal area inflicting a lot of pain. He tried to escape but the other two tax officers restrained him so [Mr A] could assault him. He tried again and managed to escape. In the process [Mr A] hit his head against [his furniture] and it started bleeding. One of the other tax officers called someone on his telephone. About 10 minutes later, more than five men arrived who he gathered were members of [Mr A’s] family. They assaulted him and thrashed his shop.
·A few of his friends arrived to protect him. They tried to stop the assailants from assaulting him and destroying his shop. A few minutes later Police Officers arrived at his shop and started investigating the people involved. He and the assailants were taken to the Police Station for further enquiries. He explained to the Police what happened and stated that he tried to defend himself when he was attacked. He asked them to pursue his complaint against the three tax officers. The Police blamed him for the whole incident and stated that he was not acting in self-defence.
·The three tax officers were released and he remained in Police custody. The Police continued interrogating him and tried to force him to accept responsibility for the incident. He denied that he hindered tax officers in the course of their duty and was responsible for the fight and insisted that he was the victim. One of the Police Officers became angry and tried to force him to admit the charges which he continued to deny. A Police Officer locked his arms behind his back and another Police Officer told him that they would beat him until he admitted the charges. The Police Officer hit him but he did not make any confession. He remained in custody until the following evening when he was released on bail. One of the conditions of the bail was that he could not leave town.
·Two days later he received a Summons from the Police to appear at the Police Station and respond to their enquiries. He did not attend at the given time. On the following day, [Mr A] and his family went to his parents’ home. He hid in the house to avoid contact with them. They told his parents that if he did anything against [Mr A] they will cause him physical harm.
·On [a later date in] March 2013, a second Summons was sent by the Police to his house. He was not there so technically he was not served and did not have to attend. He was fearful to attend the Police Station because he knew that the Police Officers would beat him again to admit the charges. He went to Hanoi to stay with his [relative] and protect himself from Police threats.
·He knew he was at risk of being identified and located by the Police at any time. He chose to leave the country and his family informed him that they found people smugglers who would be able to assist him to leave the country. He left Vietnam in April 2013 and has not returned since.
·He fears that if he returns to Vietnam he will be arrested and harmed by the Vietnamese Police and other authorities. He has also breached his bail conditions which exacerbates his fear of harm at the hands of the Police Officers. Vietnamese authorities will not protect him against the Vietnamese Police. He will not be able to live safely anywhere in Vietnam.
The applicant’s migration agent wrote to the Department on 1 July 2014 and made the following additional claims on behalf of the applicant:
·The applicant fears that the release of his personal information on the website of the Department will expose him to greater risks of persecution if he is removed to Vietnam. He believes he will be perceived as an opponent of the government of Vietnam because (in part) of his application for asylum in Australia. He fears for his safety and the safety of his family. He was told by his family that news about the data leak had been broadcast on Vietnamese television indicating that the government is aware of the leak.
·Approximately four to five months ago his family were visited by the Vietnamese authorities and told them that he had been identified as a person who has escaped to another country in order to join parties opposing the government of Vietnam and denounce the government of Vietnam. His family told the Vietnamese authorities that they did not know of his whereabouts.
In the letter dated 1 July 2014, the applicant’s migration agent stated that at the time the applicant arrived in Australia he provided a statement to the Department outlining the reasons why he cannot return to Vietnam. The applicant provided the following explanation for any apparent discrepancy between his previous statement and the statement of claims attached to his protection visa application:
·He did not know what was expected of him in putting his initial claims of protection including the level of detail that was required of him. He was afraid to make statements about certain aspects of his claims (eg. that he had been abused in custody [in] March 2013), did not know anything about Australia or its immigration system including whether his claims would be kept confidential. For this reason, he disclosed as little as possible.
·His claim in his previous statement that he received orders to go to the tax office is incorrect. His claim that he received two Summonses to go to the Police Station is correct. Although he had problems with the tax office, he was summoned to the Police Station and not the tax office.
The applicant has provided to the Department copies of his Birth Certificate, Marriage Certificate, Driver’s License and two Summonses.
The applicant attended an interview with the Department on 17 October 2014. During that interview, he reiterated and expanded on his written claims.
At the hearing before the Tribunal on 6 February 2018, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a letter dated 26 October 2017 from [Organisation 1]. The letter was from [an official] of that organization and indicated that the applicant attended a conference in [Region 1 in Australia] in September 2017 and helped to fund raise and promote the conference. He also provided the Tribunal with photographs of people, including him, attending the conference.
The applicant was given further time after the hearing to provide additional evidence and submissions. He wrote to the Tribunal and indicated that he attended an event in [City 1 in Australia] [in] April 2017 to commemorate the Fall of Saigon. He provided two photographs of people, including him, attending what appeared to be a rally. He also provided three links to a [social media] account and indicated that two of them showed his attendance at the commemorative event in [City 1] and one of them showed his attendance at the conference in [Region 1].
Country of reference/receiving country
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is a citizen of Vietnam, based on his Vietnamese Birth Certificate, Vietnamese Marriage Certificate, Vietnamese Driver’s Licence, his evidence and his fluency in the Vietnamese language. The Tribunal finds that Vietnam is his country of reference for the purpose of assessing his claims for protection under the Refugees Convention and his receiving country for the purpose of assessing his claims for protection under the complementary protection criteria
Third country protection.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is outside his country of nationality. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that he has a right to enter and reside in any country other than his country of nationality.
Assessment of claims
Incidents in Vietnam
The applicant gave evidence that his initial statement of claims was prepared with the assistance of “helpers from the community” who acted as his solicitor. He stated that he provided the information to prepare the statement of claims, the information he provided was true and correct and he was satisfied that it was accurate. He stated that his application for a Protection visa was also prepared based on his instructions which were true and correct. He stated that he is satisfied that his visa application is accurate and complete. He stated that there have been no changes in his circumstances since he filed his visa application.
During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his background, his family, his education, his employment, where he lived in Vietnam, the arrangements for him to travel to Australia, his reasons for leaving Vietnam and why he fears returning to Vietnam. The Tribunal found aspects of his evidence to be contradictory, vague, implausible and unconvincing. There were inconsistencies between his written claims and his oral evidence to the Tribunal. He made new claims throughout the process. The Tribunal formed the view that he was fabricating some of his evidence as he was giving it. The Tribunal finds that he is not a credible witness for the following reasons:

First, the applicant arrived in Australia on 19 May 2013. He was interviewed by the Department on 30 May 2013 and 6 June 2013. During those interviews, he was asked a number of questions. One of the questions was “why did you leave your country”. He answered “because my family is in financial hardship and I heard of job opportunity so I am looking for this opportunity to work”. He was then asked whether there was any other reason why he left Vietnam. He answered “because my parents mortgaged the house for me to come and so I am hoping to go out and work to repay the debt.” The Tribunal put this information to him, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that he made no mention at that time of any problems with tax officers or the Police or any Summonses or that he feared for his life if he returned to Vietnam. The Tribunal noted that this could lead it to the conclusion that the only reason why he left Vietnam was because he and his family had financial problems and he wanted to get a good job and earn money to pay off his debts.
The applicant responded that when he first came to Australia he did not know about Australia and whether it was like Vietnam. He stated that he could not put his trust in a strange country so he just said something. The Tribunal accepts that he may not have known as much about Australia then as he does now. However, the Tribunal does not accept that when he first came here he did not know about Australia or whether it was like Vietnam. Clearly, he was aware that there were better job opportunities here than in Vietnam. He had an expectation that he would be able to obtain employment and earn sufficient money to help his family to repay their debts and get out of financial hardship.
The Tribunal finds it implausible that the applicant and his family were prepared to mortgage their house and for him to embark on a perilous journey to Australia without having some knowledge of Australia and the differences between Australia and Vietnam. The Tribunal also finds it implausible that in this digital age he would not have accessed the internet and found out information about Australia before deciding to leave Vietnam and come to Australia. Further, his evidence to the Tribunal is that he was coached on the boat, on his way to Australia, in relation to what to say and do when he came to Australia. The Tribunal is also of the view that he would have spoken to other detainees at the detention centre and they would have provided him with information and advice. Further, his evidence to the Tribunal is that he also received assistance from community based solicitors and “helpers”.
If, on the other hand, the information the applicant gave the Department in response to their questions was fabricated, it raises different concerns in relation to him providing false and misleading information to the Department. In either case, his failure to mention any of the claims for protection he subsequently made raises concerns about his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Second, the applicant was interviewed by the Department on 30 May 2013 and 6 June 2013. During those interviews, he was asked the question “what do you think will happen to you if you return to your country”? He answered “cause all my family’s assets are under mortgage and if I am sent home the whole family is going to be affected.” The Tribunal put this information to him, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that he made no mention at that time of the Summonses or that he feared for his life if he returned to Vietnam. The Tribunal noted that this could lead it to the conclusion that he had no concerns about returning to Vietnam because of the Police or because he had not responded to Summonses or the Tax Officers and the only reason why he did not want to return to Vietnam was because he wanted to earn more money in Australia to pay off his family’s debts.
The applicant responded that when he first arrived in Australia he did not know about Australia, whether it was like Vietnam and whether his information would cause problems for him. He stated that he could not put his trust in a country about which he knew nothing. He stated that his “spirit was not calm mentally” and that is why he gave reasons that were “not relevant”. The Tribunal does not accept this explanation for the reasons given above. His conduct is not consistent with his claims and it raises concerns about his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Third, the applicant was interviewed by the Department on 30 May 2013 and 6 June 2013. During those interviews, he stated that he did want to go to Manus Island or Nauru because he would not be able to work and repay his debts. He stated that he was hoping to be released into the community in Australia so that he could work and repay his debts. He stated that if he was not able to do that his family would be in real hardship as they would have nothing to live on as they had already mortgaged two houses. The Tribunal put this information to him, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that it could lead it to the conclusion that his whole focus in coming to Australia was to work, earn money, pay off his debts and support his family and had nothing to do with the claims that he subsequently made.
The applicant responded that, as he said earlier, when he first arrived in Australia he knew nothing about Australia and gave some reasons that had nothing to do with his safety. The Tribunal does not accept this explanation for the reasons given above. The Tribunal notes that his request not to be sent to Manus Island or Nauru indicates that he knew a lot more about Australia than he admits. His conduct is not consistent with his claims and raises concerns about his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Fourth, the applicant was interviewed by the Department on 30 May 2013 and 6 June 2013. During those interviews, he stated that the people on the boat told him not to tell the truth as he would be deported. He stated that people suggested that he say he was under 18 years so that he could study. He stated that after he arrived in Australia he always told the truth. As he did not make any claims for protection the Department then made arrangements for him to be deported to Vietnam. Only then did he make claims for protection, for the first time, on 13 August 2013. That was about three months after he arrived in Australia. The Tribunal put this information to him, pursuant to s.424AA of the Act, and noted that it could lead it to the conclusion that his evidence during the interviews on 30 May 2013 and 6 June 2013 was the truth and that he fabricated his claims for protection because he did not want to be deported to Vietnam, wanted to stay in Australia and earn money here to pay off his debts in Vietnam.
The applicant responded that he did not fabricate his story. He stated that he was nervous, did not know anything or what to do. He stated that that was why he said something that would not affect his life. The Tribunal accepts that he may have felt nervous but does not accept that he did not know anything or what to do. The Tribunal does not accept his explanation for the reasons given above. His conduct is not consistent with his claims and raises concerns about his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Fifth, in his visa application, the applicant claimed that [in] February 2013 three Tax Officers went to his [business], told him his tax liability was [amount] Vietnamese dong, refused to show him how they calculated that amount when he asked for it, threatened to confiscate his business property and close his shop when he refused to pay the tax. He claimed that he told them he would complain to a higher authority and they left. He claimed that he lodged a complaint at the Police Station on the same day. He claimed that the three Tax Officers returned to his shop [in] March 2013, threatened him again when he refused to pay the tax, he was assaulted by one of the Tax Officers named [Mr A] and during the altercation [Mr A] hit his head against [some furniture] and it started bleeding. He claimed that one of the Tax Officers made a telephone call and ten minutes later five members of [Mr A’s] family arrived, assaulted him and thrashed his shop. He claimed that a few of his friends then arrived and tried to stop the assailants from assaulting him and destroying his shop. He claimed that Police Officers then arrived and took him and the assailants to the Police Station. He claimed that the Police blamed him for the incident, released the three Tax Officers, tried to force him to admit the charges, one of the Police Officers assaulted him and he was released on bail the following evening.
During the hearing, the Tribunal asked him about the problems he had with the Tax Office. There were a number of inconsistencies between his oral evidence and his written claims in his visa application. For instance, he stated that the incident when he was assaulted by [Mr A] and his family members took place [in] February 2013, the first visit the Tax Officers made to his [business]. He stated that at the Police Station the three Tax Officers were released and the Police wrote a statement about the incident in which they stated that he resisted the Tax Officers in the conduct of their duties and wanted him to sign the statement. He stated that when he refused to sign the statement one of the Police Officers threatened him. He stated that he was then assaulted by Police Officers, kept there overnight and released on the following morning on the condition that he not leave the town. He did not claim to have been charged with any offence.
These inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence in relation to when the assaults took place, what happened at the Police Station, whether or not he was charged and when he was released from the Police Station raise concerns about his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Sixth, in his visa application, the applicant claimed that on the date he was assaulted his [business] was thrashed. He did not claim that he returned to work after his release from the Police Station. However, during the hearing he gave evidence that, after his release from the Police Station, he continued working at his [business]. He stated that [Mr A] went back to his shop on one occasion, told him to pay the tax and caused problems for him. These inconsistencies in his evidence raise concerns about his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Seventh, in his visa application, the applicant claimed that three days after his release from the Police Station [Mr A] and his family went to his parents’ home and told them that if he did anything against [Mr A] they would cause him physical harm. He claimed that he hid in the house to avoid contact with them. During the hearing, he gave a different version of events. He stated that [Mr A] and members of his family went to his house, told his parents and other family members that if he did anything to members of [Mr A’s] family they would deal with him, threatened that they would harm him if they saw him and damaged the furniture and television in his house. This new claim in relation to [Mr A] and his family members damaging the furniture and television in his home raises further concerns about his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Eighth, in his visa application, the applicant claimed that two days after he was released from the Police Station, that is [on a specified date in] March 2013, he received a Summons from the Police to attend the Police Station and respond to their enquiries. He claimed that he did not attend as required. He claimed that on [a later date in] March 2013, the Police sent a second Summons to his house. He claimed that he was fearful to attend the Police Station so he went to Hanoi and stayed with his [relative]. During the hearing, he gave a different version of events. He stated that around three weeks after his release from the Police Station, that is [in] March 2013, the Police went to his home and personally served him with a Summons. He stated that his family advised him to leave the house so he went to Hanoi and stayed with his [relative]. He stated that whilst he was staying with his [relative] in Hanoi the Police sent another Summons to his house. He stated that he stayed with his [relative] in Hanoi for almost a month prior to leaving Vietnam. These inconsistencies in his evidence raise concerns about his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Ninth, in his visa application, the applicant stated that he resided in his village of [District 1] until April 2013 (when he left Vietnam) and worked [in his business] until April 2013. He stated that the only time he lived in Hanoi was between 2004 and 2005. He gave evidence to the Tribunal that his visa application was prepared by his migration agent based on his instructions which were true and correct and that he was satisfied that his visa application is accurate and complete. During the hearing, he gave evidence that he lived in his village of [District 1] in Ha Tinh Province all his life until he left Vietnam in April 2013 except for a period of two years from either 2004 or 2005 when he lived in Hanoi to undertake a [course]. This evidence is not consistent with his claims that he went to Hanoi and lived with his [relative] for almost a month prior to leaving Vietnam in April 2013 to travel to Australia.
The Tribunal raised as an issue with the applicant these inconsistencies in his evidence in relation to where he lived and worked and until when he did so. He responded that during his last interview with the Department he mentioned all the details including when he lived in Hanoi. He stated that when he was in the detention centre he was told to supply the addresses where he lived but not in detail. He stated that during his last interview he mentioned everything. The Tribunal does not accept this explanation as his visa application does provide a lot of detail in relation where he lived and when he did so and where he worked and when he did so. Further, his own evidence to the Tribunal is that he is satisfied that his visa application is accurate and complete. These inconsistencies in his evidence raise concerns about his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
The Tribunal raised as an issue with the applicant the many inconsistencies between his written claims in his visa application and his evidence to the Tribunal. He responded that these incidents happened many years ago and he cannot remember exact dates. The Tribunal accepts that with the passage of time it may be difficult to remember exact dates. However, the Tribunal would expect him to remember significant events and the sequence of those events that led to him making a life changing decision to leave his family, home, job and country.
Tenth, in his visa application, the applicant claimed that he knew he was at risk of being identified and located by the Police at any time. He claimed that he chose to leave the country and his family informed him that they found people smugglers who would be able to assist him to leave the country. He claimed that he left Vietnam in April 2013 and has not returned since. During the hearing, he gave evidence that he applied for a passport in 2012 because he planned to go overseas. This indicates to the Tribunal that he had plans to leave Vietnam in 2012 and that his departure from Vietnam in April 2013 was not prompted by any problems he had with the Tax Officers or [Mr A] and his family or the Police.
The Tribunal raised as an issue with the applicant the fact that he applied for a passport in 2012 to go overseas, prior to any of the incidents he claimed occurred, and its concerns about the credibility of those claims. He responded that when he applied for a passport he did not have a plan to go overseas. The Tribunal does not accept this explanation as it is implausible and inconsistent with his earlier evidence. His actions are not consistent with his claims and raise further concerns about his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Eleventh, during the hearing the applicant made new claims. One of the new claims he made was that when he was in Vietnam he took part in a demonstration against the authorities “for the unfair stuff in Vietnam” and they were in conflict with the authorities. He stated that now that he has “escaped from Vietnam” he will be accused of being against the government. When asked about the details of the demonstration he attended, he was vague. He stated that he could not remember when it was but it was a long time ago. He stated that he “just joined the demonstration accidently”. When asked how he accidently joined a demonstration, he responded that one day he was just wondering around and met some of his friends who told him there was a demonstration in Vinh. He stated that they asked him to join them and he did. He stated that he arrived there but did not know where it was.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he travelled from his hometown to Vinh and he responded yes. When asked why he attended the demonstration, he responded that he did not intend joining the demonstration and was just wondering around. He then stated that he did not say he attended a demonstration. He stated that there was Police around and they could not get in. When the Tribunal reminded him that he had just given evidence that he attended a demonstration, he agreed. When asked what the demonstration was about, he responded that his friends told him that there was an operation for Church goers. He stated that when they arrived there, there was no demonstration. He stated that the Police had blocked the way. When asked again what the demonstration was about, he responded that his friends told him that the Police oppressed Church goers and stopped people from going to Church.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether there was any reason why he had not mentioned this previously. He responded that this was not his plan. The Tribunal raised as an issue with him its doubts that he attended a demonstration or, alternatively, accidently joined a demonstration in Vietnam. He did not respond.
The applicant did not make any claims in relation to his practise of his religion and the Tribunal does not consider this to be a claim for protection on the grounds of religion. The Tribunal formed the view that he was making random assertions and claims during the hearing to enhance his prospects of getting a Protection visa. This raised further concerns in relation to his credibility and the veracity of his claims.
Twelfth, the applicant made new claims throughout the process. On 1 July 2014, his migration agent wrote to the Department and made a new claim that approximately four to five months previously the applicant’s family were visited by the Vietnamese authorities and told them that he had been identified as a person who has escaped to another country in order to join parties opposing the government of Vietnam and denounce the government of Vietnam and his family told the Vietnamese authorities that they did not know of his whereabouts. During the hearing, the Tribunal asked him what he thought would happen if he returned to Vietnam. He responded that he thinks his life would be in danger as he could be put in prison because he participated in activities in Australia.
The Tribunal notes that if the Vietnamese authorities went to the applicant’s house four or five months prior to 1 July 2014, this would have been in approximately January or February 2014. This was prior to the applicant’s ‘activities in Australia’ and therefore could not have been in relation to those activities. He did not raise any fears in relation to the Vietnamese authorities going to his house and the conversation they had with his family. This raises concerns in relation to the credibility of those claims.

The Tribunal also asked the applicant whether there was any other reason why he did not want to return to Vietnam. He did not raise any fears or concerns about the Tax Officers or [Mr A] and his family or the two outstanding Summonses he had not complied with or the Vietnamese authorities going to his house and telling his family that he had been identified as a person who had escaped to another country in order to join parties opposing the government of Vietnam and denouncing the government of Vietnam. The Tribunal is of the view that if the incidents he claimed occurred in Vietnam he would have raised these as reasons why he feared returning to Vietnam instead of only mentioning his activities in Australia. His failure to do so raises concerns about his credibility and the veracity of those claims.
Thirteenth, the Tribunal has considered the two Summonses the applicant provided the Department. The first is titled ‘Summon Notice – First Notice’ and is dated [on the date in] March 2013. It requires his attendance at the Police Station on [a specific date in] March 2013 at 2.00pm to “deal with the matter related to you.” The second is titled ‘Summon Notice – Second Notice’ and is dated [later in] March 2013. It requires his attendance at the Police Station on [the next day] at 2.00pm to “deal with the matter related to you.” In his visa application, the applicant claimed that the assaults took place on [the first date in] March 2013, he was taken to the Police Station on that date, kept at the Police Station overnight and released the following evening ([date]). In these circumstances, it is implausible that the Police would have issued the first ‘Summon Notice’ on [the first date in] March 2013 when he would have been in Police custody on that date.
In view of the above and the other concerns the Tribunal has in relation to the applicant’s claims about what happened in Vietnam, the Tribunal has doubts about the authenticity of these two Summonses. The DFAT Country Information Report on Vietnam[1] indicates the following:
Document fraud is common in Vietnam but is not necessarily linked to criminality or attempts to avoid entry and exit requirements. Applicants may resort to fraudulent documents—or to obtain them unofficially—to avoid corruption and inefficiency in the responsible government agencies. Documents can normally be verified through referral to the source, but this may result in penalties for the person concerned. …
[1] DFAT Country Information Report on Vietnam, 21 June 2017.
DFAT is aware of a number of scams involving Australian visa fraud, but the products of these scams are of relatively poor quality.
The Tribunal discussed this country information with the applicant and raised as an issue its concerns in relation to the authenticity of the two Summonses. He responded that the two Summonses are genuine and, if they are forgeries, he will accept responsibility.
The Tribunal has had regard to the Tribunal’s Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility when assessing the applicant’s credibility. The Tribunal has also had regard to the DFAT Country Information Report on Vietnam and the Department’s Policy Guidelines to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Findings
Having considered all the applicant's claims and all the evidence, individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that he is not a witness of truth. The Tribunal finds that he fabricated his material claims for the purpose of obtaining a Protection visa.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant was born on [date] in Ha Tinh Province in Vietnam and is a Vietnamese citizen. The Tribunal accepts that he is a Catholic of [specified] ethnicity. The Tribunal accepts that he is married and has a [child]. The Tribunal accepts that his wife [and specified family members] live in Vietnam.
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant worked [in his specified business] in Vietnam. The Tribunal does not accept that he had a disagreement with Tax Officers over the amount of tax he had to pay for his business. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept any of his claims that flow from that. The Tribunal does not accept that he was or is of adverse interest to the Tax Office or Tax Officers or [Mr A] and his family and/or the Vietnamese authorities in relation to any incidents he was involved in in Vietnam. The Tribunal does not accept that he left Vietnam for any of the reasons claimed in his visa application. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the two Summonses are genuine documents.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant attended or, alternatively, accidently joined a demonstration against the authorities “for the unfair stuff in Vietnam” at Vinh ‘a long time ago’. The Tribunal does not accept that the Vietnamese authorities went to his house in early 2014 and told his family that he had been identified as a person who has escaped to another country in order to join parties opposing the government of Vietnam and denounce the government of Vietnam and that his family told the Vietnamese authorities that they did not know of his whereabouts.
Activities in Australia
During the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant what he thought would happen if he returned to Vietnam. He responded that he thinks his life would be in danger as he could be put in prison because he participated in activities in Australia. When asked what activities he participated in in Australia, he responded that he joined an organization and participated in a demonstration in [City 1] on [a date in] April 2017 and attended a conference in [Region 1] in September 2017. When asked how he got involved with this organization, he responded that when he was in the detention centre some people in the community “helped us with this”. He stated that after he attended the conference the organizers gave him the letter that he provided to the Tribunal. When asked why he attended the demonstration and the conference, he stated that in his heart he always thinks of his country. He stated that he does not want his country to be oppressed by the Communist Party. When asked what other activities he has participated in, he responded that he has a video he wants the Tribunal to consider. The Tribunal provided him with further time after the hearing to provide the video and any other additional evidence.
During the hearing, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a letter dated [in] October 2017 from [Organisation 1]. The letter was from [an official] of that organization and indicated that he had attended a conference in [Region 1] in September 2017 and helped to fund raise and promote the conference. He also provided the Tribunal with photographs of people, including him, attending the conference. Following the hearing, he wrote to the Tribunal and indicated that he attended an event in [City 1] [in] April 2017 to commemorate the Fall of Saigon. He provided two photographs of people, including him, attending what appeared to be a rally. He also provided three links to a [social media] account and indicated that two of them showed him attending the commemoration in [City 1] and one of them showed him attending the conference in [Region 1].
The Tribunal has considered the letter and the photographs. The Tribunal tried to access the websites provided but was unable to do so as it repeatedly got the message ‘did not match any documents’. However, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant attended a commemoration of the Fall of Saigon in [City 1] in April 2017 and a conference organized by [Organisation 1] in [Region 1] in September 2017. The Tribunal also accepts that there may be photographs and/or videos of these events on someone’s [social media] account which also show the applicant participating in these events. The Tribunal notes that the links provided indicate that the [social media] accounts are not in his name.
The Tribunal has concerns in relation to the applicant’s motivation for attending these events. His evidence is that he became aware of [Organisation 1] when people in the community “helped them” when he was in detention. He was released from detention on 10 December 2014. The Tribunal would expect that if he always thinks of his country and does not want his country to be oppressed by the Communist Party, as he claimed during the hearing, he would have become involved with this organization after he was released from detention on 10 December 2014 and participated in activities organized by them since then.
However, the applicant did not participate in activities organized by [Organisation 1] until several years later and only after his application for a Protection visa was refused by the Department and after the Tribunal initially affirmed the decision made by the Department on 3 April 2017. The fact that he ensured that he was photographed at the two events he attended and obtained a letter to confirm his participation in the conference raises concerns for the Tribunal that he participated in these two events for the sole purpose of obtaining evidence to enhance his prospects of obtaining a Protection visa.
The Tribunal informed the applicant of the provisions of s.91R(3) of the Act and its concerns that he attended the commemoration in [City 1] and the conference in [Region 1] in 2017 for the sole purpose of strengthening his claims to be a refugee. He responded that he does not think he did it for that purpose. He stated that he only thought about what he could do to contribute to the pressure on the country to make it change from a dictatorship to a different form of government. When asked how his attendance at the conference in [Region 1] achieved that objective, he responded that his activities would not do much but people could stand up together and raise their voices to speak to outsiders on behalf of the Vietnamese people. The Tribunal does not find this explanation to be persuasive.
Towards the end of the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant whether there was any other reason why he did not want to return to Vietnam. He responded that he does not want to return to Vietnam because there is no freedom of speech and he does not want to live in a situation where the authorities oppress people and rob the land. When asked whether he or any member of his family have had their land confiscated by the government, he responded that they have not but there are other people to whom this has happened. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal does not accept that he does not want to return to Vietnam for these reasons.
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant is at risk of serious harm or significant harm if he returns to Vietnam because of his attendance at the commemoration in [City 1] in April 2017 and his participation in the conference in [Region 1] in September 2017 and whether he is likely to express political views or participate in political activities that may bring him to the adverse attention of the Vietnamese authorities.
The Tribunal is of the view that the chances of the Vietnamese authorities being aware of the applicant’s attendance at the commemoration and the conference in 2017 are remote. The Tribunal is of the view that, even if they are aware that these events were held, it is highly unlikely that they would have the technology or the ability to identify individuals who attended those events who are not high profile, such as the applicant, from videos or photographs on [social media].
The Tribunal raised as an issue with the applicant its doubts that he would be of adverse interest to the Vietnamese authorities because he attended the conference in [Region 1] and the commemoration in [City 1]. He responded that he could not comment on that. He stated that he would like Vietnam to be like any capitalist country where people have freedom of speech, freedom for the media and freedom to do what they want to do. Despite the fact that he has had freedom of speech in Australia, he has not claimed to have personally exercised that freedom in the years he has lived here other than for attending these two events.
The Tribunal is of the view that what is important is what the applicant is likely to do or wish to do on his return to Vietnam that may bring him to the adverse attention of the Vietnamese authorities. The Tribunal is not convinced that the applicant genuinely holds anti-Communist/pro-democracy views and the conviction or desire to act on those political views if he returns to Vietnam now or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance or a real risk that his political opinions will bring him to the adverse attention of the Vietnamese authorities if he returns to Vietnam now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Findings
Having considered all the applicant's claims and all the evidence, individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal accepts that he attended a commemoration of the Fall of Saigon in [City 1] in April 2017 and participated in a conference in [Region 1] in September 2017 that were organized by [Organisation 1]. The Tribunal accepts that he had photographs taken of him participating in these events and that these events were recorded on video. The Tribunal accepts that some photographs and videos taken at these events have been posted on [social media] accounts that are not in the applicant’s name.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate that the Vietnamese authorities are aware of the applicant’s participation in these events. As he was not a leader or organizer of these events and was only a low profile participant in these events, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm to him for this reason in the unlikely event that the Vietnamese authorities become aware of his participation in these events.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant genuinely holds political opinions and the conviction or desire to act on them if he returns to Vietnam now or in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he is at risk of coming to the adverse attention of the Vietnamese authorities on his return to Vietnam. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he is at risk of serious harm or significant harm for reason of his political opinions if he returns to Vietnam now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Data breach
In February 2014 a routine report was unintentionally released on the Department’s website which enabled access to some personal information about people who were in immigration detention in Australia on 31 January 2014. This information was accessible online for a short period of time before it was removed from the Department’s website. As the applicant was in immigration detention on 31 January 2014, some of his personal information such as his name, date of birth, nationality, gender and details of his detention were contained in that report. The report did not contain any information in relation to whether or not he had made a claim for asylum. This is referred to as the ‘data breach’.
On 1 July 2014, the applicant’s migration agent wrote to the Department and made new claims that the applicant fears that the release of his personal information on the website of the Department will expose him to greater risks of persecution if he is removed to Vietnam. He claimed that he believes he will be perceived as an opponent of the government of Vietnam because (in part) of his application for asylum in Australia. He claimed that he fears for his safety and the safety of his family. He claimed that he was told by his family that news about the data leak had been broadcast on Vietnamese television indicating that the government is aware of the leak.
During the hearing, the Tribunal discussed these claims with him. When asked why the data breach would be a problem for him, he responded that he was told that because of the data breach “people who escaped” would be imprisoned between six months to six years. When asked who told him this, he responded that he remembers reading this when he was in the detention centre. When asked where he read this, he responded that it was “some kind of web news”. The Tribunal pointed out that the Vietnamese government may not even know that the report was on the Department’s website let alone that his name was on the list of detainees. When asked whether he was just speculating that the Vietnamese authorities may be aware that he was in detention in Australia on 31 January 2014, he responded that he did not know whether or not the Vietnamese government was aware of this.
The applicant stated that they received a Notice from the Department about the data breach. He stated that if the Vietnamese authorities are aware of the data breach, he knows that their lives would be in danger. When asked how he knows this, he responded that in Vietnam he took part in a demonstration against the authorities for “unfair stuff in Vietnam” and they then had conflict with the authorities. He stated that now that they have “escaped from Vietnam” they will be accused of being against the country. He then gave evidence about attending or, alternatively, accidently joining a demonstration in Vinh referred to above. The Tribunal has not accepted that he attended or accidently joined that demonstration and therefore does not accept this explanation.
The Tribunal also does not accept that the applicant will be accused of being against Vietnam because he “escaped from Vietnam”. The Tribunal has not accepted his claims in relation to the above incidents in Vietnam or that he is of adverse interest to the Vietnamese authorities or [Mr A] and his family and therefore does not accept that he “escaped from Vietnam” for any of the reasons claimed. His evidence is that he had a valid passport and left Vietnam lawfully. The chances of the Vietnamese authorities being aware of the list that the Department accidently posted on their website for a short period of time and the names on that list prior to it being removed from the Department’s website and the media reporting on this issue is remote. Even if they were aware that he was in detention in Australia on 31 January 2014 the information published did not indicate that he had made an application for protection. Even if they infer that he had applied for asylum in Australia they would not be aware of what his claims are.
The DFAT Country Information Report on Vietnam[2] indicates the following:
Article 91 of the Penal Code 1999 states that ‘Fleeing abroad or defecting to stay overseas with a view to opposing the people’s administration’ is an offence. However, DFAT is unaware of any cases where this provision has been used against failed asylum seekers. Returns to Vietnam are usually done on the understanding that they will not face charges as a result of their having made asylum applications. In December 2016, a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed between the Australian Department of Immigration and Border Protection and Vietnam's Ministry of Public Security, which provides a formal framework for the return of Vietnamese nationals ‘with no legal right to enter or remain in Australia, including those intercepted at sea’.
DFAT assesses that persons who paid money to organisers of people smuggling operations are viewed by the Government as victims of criminal activity (people smuggling), rather than as criminals facing the penalties allowed in the law for illegally departing Vietnam. While some returnees can be briefly detained and interviewed, DFAT assesses that long-term detention, investigation and arrest is conducted only in relation to those suspected of involvement in organising people- smuggling operations. DFAT understands this to be the case in relation to several individuals who were on board vessels returned to Vietnam in 2016.
[2] Ibid.

The applicant’s evidence is that his family organized for him to use the services of people smugglers to travel to Australia. He does not claim to be a people smuggler and would therefore not be at risk of serious harm or significant harm for this reason.
The Tribunal raised as an issue with the applicant its doubts that he will be at risk of serious harm or significant harm if he returned to Vietnam because of the Department publishing a report on their website in relation to people who were in detention in Australia on 31 January 2014. He responded by asking the question ‘why are there movements and demonstrations against the Vietnamese government in Australia against “the robbery of land”? He stated that Vietnamese people living in Australia participate in the demonstrations. This response does not address the issue raised with him or alleviate the Tribunal’s doubts.
Findings
Having considered all the applicant’s claims and all the evidence, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was in detention in Australia on 31 January 2014 and that his name would therefore have been on the list of detainees in the report posted on the Department’s website. The Tribunal is not satisfied, on the evidence before it, that the Vietnamese authorities are aware that the applicant’s name was disclosed in the data breach.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the data breach will expose the applicant to a greater risk of persecution if he is removed to Vietnam. The Tribunal is not satisfied, on the evidence before it, that he will be perceived as an opponent of the government of Vietnam if the Vietnamese authorities infer that he had made a claim for asylum in Australia and that his safety and the safety of his family will be at risk for this reason.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that, even if the Vietnamese authorities are aware of the data breach and infer that the applicant is a failed asylum seeker, this would give rise to a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm if he returns to Vietnam now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Cumulative findings
Having considered all the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively and all the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he is at risk of serious harm or significant harm, for any of the reasons claimed, if he returns to Vietnam now or in the foreseeable future.
Subclass 785 visa
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant the fact that he applied for a permanent Protection (Class XA) visa on 1 July 2014 but that, by operation of s.45AA of the Act and r.2.08F of the Migration Regulations 1994, from 16 December 2014 the application is taken to be, and to have always been, a valid application for a Temporary Protection (Class XD) visa and is taken not to be, and never to have been, a valid application for a Protection (Class XA) visa. He responded that he was aware of this and declined to make a response.
Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the Refugees Convention?
Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence, the Tribunal has rejected the applicant’s material claims in relation to alleged incidents in Vietnam.
The Tribunal has accepted that the applicant attended a commemoration of the Fall of Saigon in [City 1] in April 2017 and a conference in [Region 1] in September 2017 that were organised by [Organisation 1]. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant participated in these two events in Australia for the purpose of obtaining evidence to support his application for a Protection visa. The Tribunal is not satisfied that he engaged in these activities otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening his claims to be a refugee. The Tribunal disregards such conduct in accordance with s.91R(3) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that the applicant would be at risk of persecution on the grounds of his actual or imputed political opinion, religion or any other Refugees Convention reason if he returns to Vietnam now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Refugees Convention reason. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act.
Does Australia have protection obligations to the applicant under the complementary protection criterion?
As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered whether he may nevertheless meet the criterion for the grant of a Protection visa pursuant to the complementary protection criterion.
The Tribunal is mindful that s.91R(3) of the Act does not apply with respect to conduct in the context of complementary protection. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant’s conduct in Australia will result in a real risk of significant harm on his return to Vietnam. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk of significant harm for this reason if he returns to Vietnam now or in the foreseeable future.
In view of the above findings, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm for any of the reasons claimed if he returns to Vietnam now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Having considered all of the applicant’s claims, individually and cumulatively, and all the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he will be arbitrarily deprived of life, the death penalty will be carried out on him, he will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or he will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment if he returns to Vietnam now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Vietnam, there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm as defined in s.36(2A) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(a) or s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.

100. There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act and who holds a Protection visa. Accordingly, he does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2) of the Act.
DECISION
101. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Linda Symons
Member

[2018] AATA 2447

24 May 2018

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Jurisdiction

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Appeal