1814698 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by two applicants from Vietnam. The applicants, who are Protestant Christians, claimed they feared official and societal harm and discrimination on account of their faith if they were to return to Vietnam. They asserted they had experienced subtle societal discrimination in the past and noted the limited availability of churches in Vietnam. They also raised concerns about their children, who have lived in Australia for approximately ten years, are accustomed to its tolerance of their faith, and would find it difficult to integrate into Vietnamese society.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations, specifically whether they met the criteria for being a refugee under section 5H of the Migration Act 1958, or whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal from Australia, they would suffer significant harm under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicants' claims in light of relevant country information and the provisions of the Migration Act concerning well-founded fear of persecution and significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas. It found that the applicants had not discharged their responsibility under section 5AAA of the Act to specify all particulars of their claims and provide sufficient evidence. While accepting some minor background details provided by the applicants, the Tribunal was not satisfied that they had established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, nor that there was a real risk of significant harm upon return to Vietnam. The Tribunal considered the available country information and concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated that they would be unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of Vietnam, or that effective protection measures would not be available to them. Consequently, the applicants did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.