1719333 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual from Vietnam. The applicant claimed a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of being a family member of individuals who had unpaid debts to illegal money lenders, commonly known as loan sharks. The applicant also raised concerns about his mental health and history of family violence. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or under the complementary protection provisions in section 36(2)(aa).

The central legal issues were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, and if not, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Vietnam, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. This involved assessing the prevalence and methods of loan sharks in Vietnam, the availability and effectiveness of state protection, and the reasonableness of internal relocation as a means of avoiding harm. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's explanation for not responding to a request for further information from the Department in 2017, attributing it to a misunderstanding of the process and the actions of his migration agents.

The Tribunal considered extensive country information regarding the activities of loan sharks in Vietnam, noting their widespread nature, aggressive debt collection tactics, and the potential for violence and harassment against debtors and their families. It also examined evidence suggesting that state protection in Vietnam is often ineffective due to corruption and a lack of written evidence for loans. The Tribunal found that the applicant's fear of harm was not remote or far-fetched, and that relocation within Vietnam would not be a reasonable or practicable option given the pervasive nature of loan shark networks and potential corruption. The Tribunal also acknowledged the applicant's mental health condition and history of family violence as factors contributing to his vulnerability.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. While acknowledging the applicant's claims and the country information presented, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act*. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the complementary protection criteria under section 36(2)(aa), as it was not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing he faced a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Vietnam. The Tribunal noted that there was no suggestion the applicant was a member of the same family unit as a person who already held a protection visa.