1816066 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a protection visa made by the applicant, a citizen of Vietnam. The applicant claimed she would face persecution in Vietnam due to her husband's involvement with Catholic activities, which had led to him being summoned, threatened, and beaten by police, and subsequently removed from household registration after his departure from Vietnam. The applicant argued that she would be part of her husband's family unit upon return and that her youngest child, not registered in Vietnam, might have the capacity to make their own application.

The court was required to determine two primary issues. Firstly, whether there was a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted in Vietnam for one or more of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, thereby satisfying the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a). Secondly, if the refugee criterion was not met, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal to Vietnam, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, thus satisfying the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa).

The court considered the applicant's claims in the context of her return to Vietnam with her husband and children, noting that Vietnamese culture emphasises family values and that she would return as a married woman. The court accepted that they would likely return to Hà Tĩnh province. The court found that the applicant had renewed her passport in 2021 and had consistently stated she was a Vietnamese citizen, assessing her claims against Vietnam as the country of nationality and receiving country. The court also noted that there was no suggestion that the applicant satisfied the criteria as a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa under section 36(2)(b) or (c).

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that she did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958.