1801784 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa for Australia, who claimed to fear harm upon return to Vietnam. The applicant's claims stemmed from an alleged traffic accident in 2006 involving the son of a high-ranking official, subsequent threats and intimidation by a police officer named Officer A, and ongoing fear for his safety and that of his family. The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, including the complementary protection criterion.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm if returned to Vietnam, and whether his claims were credible. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess the applicant's account of events, including the traffic accident, the alleged bribery of Officer A, the threats made against him and his family, and the subsequent fear of harm. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's delay in applying for a protection visa, which occurred after his student visa was cancelled and a request for ministerial intervention was unsuccessful, and whether this chronology was consistent with genuine fear.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the credibility of the applicant's claims and the plausibility of his narrative. It noted that the applicant's initial protection visa application in February 2017 was lodged significantly after the alleged incidents in 2006 and subsequent years. Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision from 2016, which affirmed the cancellation of the applicant's student visa, and found no record of the applicant raising fears of returning to Vietnam at that earlier time. The applicant's explanation for the delay, that he only "feared returning to Vietnam for sure" after his student visa was no longer valid, was not considered reasonably plausible by the Tribunal, particularly given the passage of time and the temporary nature of his student visa. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's response to information put to him under s 424A(1) of the Act, which included his lack of knowledge about what would happen to him if he returned to Vietnam, his assertion of having been a law-abiding person, and his desire to stay to help his wife care for their child.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the grant of a protection visa. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established that he met the criteria for a protection visa, including the complementary protection criterion, based on the evidence and his submissions.