1730422 (Refugee)

The applicants, a couple and their two children, sought protection visas. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicants held a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Vietnam. The applicants’ claims were based on economic hardship and, for the second applicant, a preference for Western liberal values and concerns about freedom of speech in Vietnam. The matter was before the Tribunal for review of a decision not to grant them protection visas.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, specifically whether they were refugees with a well-founded fear of persecution on the grounds of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicants met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa), meaning whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to Vietnam, there was a real risk they would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal considered evidence regarding the economic situation in Vietnam, noting projected economic growth and a low unemployment rate, and concluded that the applicants would not be subjected to significant economic hardship threatening their capacity to subsist. While acknowledging the applicants’ concerns about finding work, the Tribunal found no evidence that any person or group would seek to harm them due to their economic situation, nor that they had been discriminated against in obtaining work in Vietnam. Regarding the second applicant's claims about political opinions, the Tribunal found she had not been politically active and had no adverse profile in Vietnam, thus not being perceived as 'anti-government'. The Tribunal also considered country information indicating that returnees from Australia are generally only questioned briefly and are not stigmatised. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm, as defined by the Act, if returned to Vietnam.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the applicants protection visas.