1800328 (Refugee)

The applicants, a married couple, sought Permanent Protection visas. The primary applicant's claim for protection was based on an imputed political opinion stemming from her father's past employment with the South Vietnamese government and his subsequent attendance at a re-education camp. The delegate refused the visas, finding no reasonable basis to believe the primary applicant would be imputed with such an opinion or face persecution on return to Vietnam. The secondary applicant's claim was dependent on the primary applicant's. The matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the primary applicant had established a real chance of suffering serious harm or significant harm if returned to Vietnam, either on refugee grounds or complementary protection grounds. This involved assessing whether her father's past political associations would lead to her being imputed with a political opinion that would place her at risk of persecution. The Tribunal also considered the evidence of discrimination and limited future prospects in Vietnam as presented by the primary applicant.

The Tribunal accepted the evidence that the primary applicant's father had worked for the South Vietnamese government and had undergone re-education. However, it found that there was not a real chance that the primary applicant would suffer serious harm if she returned to Vietnam. The Tribunal concluded that the discrimination and difficulties described by the primary applicant, including limited employment and residence options due to her father's past, did not amount to a real risk of serious harm or significant harm. Therefore, the primary applicant did not meet the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visas.