1807073 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Vietnam, sought a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion or religion, or a real risk of significant harm, should he be returned to Vietnam. The matter came before the Tribunal for review of a decision not to grant the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicant was a refugee, as defined by section 5H, by considering if he had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and if there was a real chance of suffering significant harm upon return to Vietnam. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to establish his claims, as stipulated by section 5AAA of the Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant bore the onus of specifying all particulars of his claim and providing sufficient evidence. Despite being invited to attend a hearing, the applicant declined and relied solely on the documents lodged with his application. These documents included a passport, a driver's licence, family documents, letters of support from priests, and copies of summonses for interrogation. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had not provided detailed evidence to substantiate his claims of persecution, particularly in relation to his alleged opposition to the Vietnamese government and participation in a demonstration. The Tribunal applied the principles from cases such as *MIEA v Guo & Anor* (1997) 191 CLR 559, emphasizing that a decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for them or uncritically accept all allegations. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the "real risk" test in relation to significant harm, as interpreted in *MIAC v SZQRB* (2013) 210 FCR 505, and relevant country information.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act due to a lack of sufficient evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.