1814207 (Refugee)

The applicant sought a protection visa, but the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether they had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Vietnam.

The court was required to determine if the applicant qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, or if they met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). 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 that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, they would suffer significant harm. The court also considered whether the applicant could access effective protection in Vietnam or if relocation would mitigate any risk.

The court considered evidence from a DFAT Country Information Report for Vietnam, which detailed the economic conditions, prevalence of corruption, and the widespread nature of illegal moneylending and loan sharking. The report indicated that while usury is a criminal offence, police effectiveness in combating it is unclear, with debtors often reluctant to approach authorities and a lack of written evidence hindering investigations, particularly with the rise of online lending. The report also noted a potential for retaliation for unpaid debts, ranging from harassment to violence, which could be carried out by hired thugs or even family members. While state protection is available, its effectiveness is not clear, and the judiciary is subordinate to the Communist Party, raising concerns about impartiality. The DFAT assessment suggested a moderate risk of violence from loan sharks, potentially mitigated by relocation, though the risk is higher if dealing with organised crime gangs. The court found no evidence that the applicant satisfied the criteria for a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.