1814427 (Refugee)

The applicants, Vietnamese citizens who had been residing in Australia for several years, sought a protection visa. Their claim was primarily based on the first applicant's fear of harm upon return to Vietnam, stemming from his father's long-term employment with a Vietnamese Government-owned company. The applicants contended that this connection meant they could be perceived as holding views adverse to the Vietnamese Government, leading to a real chance of harm.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, either under the 'refugee' criterion or the 'complementary protection' grounds. This required determining if the first applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Vietnam, there was a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also considered whether the second and third applicants, as members of the first applicant's family unit, qualified for the visa based on his claim.

The Tribunal considered the first applicant's claim that his father's employment with a government-owned company created a risk of harm due to imputed political opinions. It acknowledged that the fear of harm could arise from being perceived to hold views adverse to the Vietnamese Government. However, the Tribunal ultimately found that it was not satisfied that the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the *Migration Act 1958*.

Despite not being satisfied on those grounds, the Tribunal determined that the second and third applicants were members of the same family unit as the first applicant. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration with directions that the first applicant satisfy section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act*, and that the other applicants satisfy section 36(2)(b)(i) on the basis of their family membership.