1824835 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Vietnam, sought review of a decision to refuse his protection visa application. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Vietnam, based on his alleged online political opinions critical of the Vietnamese government. The applicant had not requested an oral hearing and consented to the Tribunal making a decision based on the documents provided.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant possessed a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and whether there was a real chance of such persecution upon return to Vietnam. Alternatively, the Tribunal considered whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, the applicant would suffer significant harm as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to consider relevant country information, including assessments by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) concerning political opinion, online activism, and the treatment of returnees.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient detailed evidence to substantiate his claims of persecution. While acknowledging that online activism in Vietnam is monitored and can attract attention, the Tribunal found, based on the provided country information, that low-level online activity by individuals with little public profile was unlikely to result in persecution. The Tribunal noted that while a repeated pattern of online activity could attract attention, the applicant's own account suggested only low-level engagement. Furthermore, the Tribunal found no evidence to suggest that the applicant's specific online criticisms would place him at a real risk of persecution or significant harm. The Tribunal applied the established legal principles regarding the assessment of well-founded fear and real risk, referencing the standard set in *MIAC v SZQRB* (2013) 210 FCR 505.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. The applicant's fears were not considered well-founded, and there were no substantial grounds to believe he would suffer significant harm upon return to Vietnam.