1807762 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa application of a Vietnamese national. The applicant claimed he could not return to Vietnam due to his opposition to the government, expressed through social media protests, which he alleged had resulted in an arrest warrant and a real risk of detention and physical assault. He also asserted that his family was categorised as "traitors" by the government, and he would face similar consequences wherever he went in Vietnam.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or a real risk of significant harm, as defined by the Migration Act 1958. This involved assessing the applicant's claims in light of the evidence provided and the relevant country information for Vietnam. A key issue was the applicant's responsibility to provide sufficient particulars and evidence to establish his claims, and whether the Tribunal was obligated to make his case for him.

The Tribunal applied the principles that the onus is on the applicant to supply all relevant facts in sufficient detail to enable the decision-maker to establish the facts, and that the Tribunal is not required to accept uncritically all allegations made. It noted that the applicant had declined an invitation to attend a hearing to provide evidence. The Tribunal considered the applicant's submissions and the Department's file, along with the DFAT Country Information Report on Vietnam. It also referenced the "real risk" test established in *MIAC v SZQRB* (2013) 210 FCR 505, which it considered to be the same standard as the "real chance" test for a well-founded fear.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Act, as there was no suggestion he met the requirements for being a refugee or facing a real risk of significant harm.