1718431 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by a Vietnamese male applicant against the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of his protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared arrest and torture in Vietnam due to his financial support of charity groups that organised protests concerning environmental damage and human rights. He did not attend the hearing before the Tribunal, having indicated he would not, and requested a decision based on the available information.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or a real risk of significant harm, as required by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) for the grant of a protection visa. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant's claims of financial support to protest groups and subsequent fear of arrest and torture by Vietnamese authorities met the statutory thresholds for refugee status or complementary protection.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's claims lacked detail and were not substantiated by corroborating evidence, particularly given his failure to attend the hearing. Citing *MIEA v Guo*, the Tribunal emphasised that a mere claim of fear is insufficient; the applicant must satisfy the decision-maker that all statutory elements are met. The Tribunal found no real chance that the applicant would face serious harm for any reason specified in section 5(J) of the Act, nor did it find that he met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal noted the applicant's adviser had indicated an intent to seek Ministerial intervention, but this did not alter the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal also noted that there was no suggestion the applicant satisfied the criteria under section 36(2) by being a family member of someone who held a protection visa.