1822604 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Vietnam, sought review of a decision not to grant him a protection visa. The applicant claimed he feared persecution in Vietnam due to his Catholic faith and imputed political opinion, stemming from his family's opposition to the Communist government and the harassment they allegedly faced from non-Christians and authorities. The review was conducted by a single member of the Tribunal, Catherine Wall.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing a real risk of significant harm if returned to Vietnam. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against the relevant provisions of the Act, including the definitions of "refugee," "well-founded fear of persecution," and "significant harm," and consider available country information.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient detail to substantiate his claims. While acknowledging country information indicating restrictions on religious activities in Vietnam, the Tribunal also noted information suggesting that Catholics could generally practice freely in registered churches and that relations between the Catholic church and the government were generally cordial. The applicant's claims of harassment lacked specific details regarding the identity of perpetrators, dates, locations, and any injuries sustained. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted the applicant had been in Australia for over six years and had provided no information about his current circumstances or his family's current situation in Vietnam. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded there was insufficient detail regarding the exact nature of the harm feared, whether it amounted to serious harm, and whether there was a real chance or risk of experiencing such harm if returned to Vietnam.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).