1822411 (Refugee)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' decision to refuse a protection visa to the first applicant. The applicant claimed he left Vietnam due to opposition to the Communist Party regime and local government, alleging he was ignored, watched, and followed, and that authorities would not protect him. He also claimed that upon return, he would face similar treatment and difficulty finding employment. The delegate had not been satisfied that the applicant met the definition of a refugee under s 5H(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or that there were substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm if removed to Vietnam, thus not meeting the criteria under s 36(2)(a) or s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant qualified for a protection visa under the criteria set out in s 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether he was a refugee under s 36(2)(a) or a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal under s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal also considered evidence presented post-hearing regarding the medical and educational needs of the applicant's daughter.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa. While accepting the applicant had been employed by a public authority and had paid bribes to his superior for a period, the Tribunal found his evidence regarding threats of harm from his employer or government authorities to be vague and lacking detail, and therefore not believable. The Tribunal also found it implausible that the applicant could have continued working for the same employer for several years after ceasing bribe payments if he had genuinely been threatened. Furthermore, the Tribunal did not accept the applicant's claims that he was targeted for harm after ceasing employment or that he was "watched and followed" by authorities, noting his absence from Vietnam since 2017 and from the relevant employment since 2015. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm upon return to Vietnam.