1810093 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision by the Refugee Tribunal to affirm the refusal of a protection visa. The applicant, who had left Vietnam due to distrust of the judiciary and government, claimed to fear physical assault or death from creditors to whom she owed money. She asserted that authorities considered her debt a personal economic problem and that relocation within Vietnam was not a viable solution due to socio-economic factors.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee under s 5H(1) of the Migration Act 1958, or alternatively, whether Australia had protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act due to a real risk of significant harm if returned to Vietnam. This involved assessing whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, or if there were substantial grounds for believing she would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal considered extensive country information regarding Vietnam's political and economic landscape, its judicial system, corruption levels, and the effectiveness of state protection. It noted that while Vietnam had experienced economic growth, significant inequalities persisted, and the judicial and law enforcement systems were susceptible to corruption and lacked adequate resources and training. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "significant harm" and the concept of "real risk," referencing the case of *MIAC v SZQRB* (2013) 210 FCR 505, which equated the "real risk" test with the "real chance" test for well-founded fear. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, concluding that she did not meet the requirements of s 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.