1721665 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa application of an individual from Vietnam. The applicant claimed to fear harm from a money lender due to an unpaid debt, citing the general economic conditions and corruption in Vietnam as contributing factors to their inability to repay. The applicant also expressed a fear of being found and harmed by the money lender, even if they relocated within Vietnam, and stated they had no safe third country to go to.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether effective protection measures were available in Vietnam. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's migration history, including their unlawful non-citizen status and employment while in Australia.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted the applicant's claims of threats from a money lender and the general economic difficulties in Vietnam. However, it also considered country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which indicated that while illegal moneylending is widespread and can involve violence, state protection is available, albeit with unclear effectiveness. The Tribunal found a lack of evidence that the money lender had made demands or taken steps to recover the debt for a significant period, or that the applicant's family members had been harmed. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the applicant had not attempted to regularise their migration status and had worked while in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen. Crucially, the Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant had a right to enter or reside in any safe third country.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, concluding that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of section 36(2) of the Act.