1821743 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a protection visa made by a Vietnamese national. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in Vietnam due to his parents' Christian faith and anti-government activities, which allegedly led to their business being closed and crackdowns on church attendance. The applicant had a history of visa cancellations and periods as an unlawful non-citizen in Australia, with his initial protection visa application being invalidated.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion or imputed political opinion, and whether Australia had protection obligations towards him. The Tribunal also had to consider the applicant's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to establish his claims and the relevance of country information regarding Vietnam.

The Tribunal reasoned that it is the applicant's responsibility to specify all particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence, and that the Tribunal is not obliged to make the case for the applicant. The applicant had declined an invitation to attend a hearing, and the Tribunal relied on the submissions of his representative and the Department's file. The Tribunal noted that while Vietnam officially recognises Catholicism, there was no evidence presented of restrictions on church activities or the applicant's own political activity or profile. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the country information report on Vietnam, which indicated that Catholicism is officially recognised. The Tribunal applied the "real risk" test for significant harm, which it equated to the "real chance" test for well-founded fear.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the criterion under section 36(2) of the Act, as there was no evidence to establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Vietnam.