1825807 (Refugee)

1825807 (Refugee) [2022] AATA 3629 (21 July 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1825807
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Vietnam
MEMBER:Kate Chapple
DATE:21 July 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants a protection visa.

Statement made on 21 July 2022 at 12:53pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Vietnam – political opinion – father a former member of the South Vietnamese military armed forces – Communist re-education camp – former representative’s conduct – no understanding of the substance of the visa application – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5H, 5J, 36, 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This decision record relates to an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 23 August 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants a Protection XA subclass 866 Visa (protection visa) under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
BACKGROUND
The applicants claim to be citizens of Vietnam, the main applicant being the father of the secondary applicant, his daughter.
The Department’s movement records show that the main applicant first arrived in Australia [in] May 2017 as the holder of a FA-600 Visitor visa and departed Australia [in] August 2017.
The Department’s movement records further show that the main applicant and secondary applicant arrived together in Australia [in] June 2018 each as a holder of a FA-600 Visitor visa under the Sponsored Family stream, sponsored by the main applicant’s sister and mother respectively. The main applicant has remained onshore since.
On 20 June 2018, a representative acting as a migration agent who is not a legal practitioner, was appointed to represent the applicants in their application for a protection visa.
On 21 June 2018, the applicants lodged an application with the Department each for a protection visa and Bridging A class WA subclass 010 visa (bridging visa).
On 9 July 2018, the Department granted the applicants each a bridging visa. The main applicant’s bridging visa remains current.
On 23 August 2018, the Minister’s delegate issued to the main applicant via an email to the applicants’ representative a notification of refusal of application for a Protection subclass 866 visa and the related decision record.
On 4 September 2018, the applicants’ representative lodged on the applicants’ behalf an application with the Tribunal for merits review of the refusal decision.
[In] November 2018, the secondary applicant departed Australia, whereupon her bridging visa ceased.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT
Protection visa application
The applicants’ protection visa application provided (inter alia) the following information:
11.1.The main applicant is a male born in [year] in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam who is a citizen of Vietnam; of the Buddhist religion; speaks, reads, and writes Vietnamese; and speaks and reads English.
11.2.The secondary applicant is a female born in [year] in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam who is a citizen of Vietnam; of the Buddhist religion; speaks, reads, and writes Vietnamese; and speaks, reads, and writes English.
11.3.The main applicant and secondary applicant are related as father and daughter respectively.
11.4.The main applicant married in 1998 and remains married. His wife and [number] other younger daughters are citizens of Vietnam and live together in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
11.5.The main applicant’s parents, [number] of his brothers, and [number] of his sisters are Australian citizens and live in Australia. His other brother is a citizen of Vietnam and lives in Australia. His other sister is a citizen of Vietnam and lives in Saigon, Vietnam.
11.6.The main applicant was primary and high school educated in Ho Chi Minh City, and completed a further unspecified high school course from September 2011 to May 2018. He was self-employed in a [business] in Ho Chi Minh City from July 1986 to June 2015 and was employed as a [Occupation 1] in a [business] in Ho Chi Minh City from June 2015 to June 2018.
11.7.The secondary applicant was primary school educated in Ho Chi Minh City; no other education details are provided.
11.8.The main and secondary applicants legally departed Vietnam [in] June 2018, each as a visitor travelling on a Vietnamese passport numbers [number] and [number] respectively and arrived in Australia [in] June 2018.
The applicants’ protection visa application set out claims for protection summarised below, the secondary applicant advancing the same claims as the main applicant:
12.1.The main applicant’s father was an ex-officer of the armed forces of the Republic of Vietnam and had been detained in an ‘Education Camp’ of the current Communist government in Vietnam. The local police authority visited the applicant’s family home many times to monitor if his father was involved in any anti-communist government activities.
12.2.The main applicant’s parents were sponsored to reunite with their son in Australia leading to the local police having doubts and strictly monitoring the remaining members of the family, sometime mistreating them, and not allowing them to relocate elsewhere.
12.3.The main applicant use [sic] to express the hard policy and abuse of power of communist cadres and the suppression of religions and the arbitrary arrest of innocent victims.
12.4.The main applicant quietly found a way to escape the control and surveillance of the local police. He finally obtaining a visa from [sic] himself and his daughter, they departed Vietnam with the intention of breathing the freedom and liberty of Australia.
12.5.The main applicant’s daughter and her friends use [sic] to promote the campaign against the policy of Communist Vietnam that led to large demonstrations in Ho Chi Minh City and other places throughout the country.
12.6.The main applicant experienced harm in the past from the local police. For example, any applications he made were not processed immediately, as was the case for others, and he had to pay a monetary bribe. His social activities were also restricted and monitored by local police.
12.7.The main applicant was not permitted to move or travel to another part of the country because the authorities wanted to keep them in their own area in order to control and monitor their activities. In Vietnam the Household Registration book is used by the communist government to strictly control the movement of people, particularly the elements that have anti-government thought. Permission and an introduction is also required from the local police to the police authority at the destination. A black book is also kept in the local area for controlling the daily activities of people who are a concern.
12.8.The main applicant and his daughter will be monitored on return and invited for interrogation by the local police authority, to find out what activities they were involved in while in Australia. They will be arrested if the authorities have doubts about them and detained for further interrogation. They will be kept under surveillance and discriminated against because they will be considered anti-government. The local and national authority will also not provide them with protection as a consequence of their anti-government profile.
Supporting documents
Documentary evidence of the applicants’ identity: biodata page of Socialist Republic of Vietnam passport no. [number] (copy) issued in the name of the main applicant [in] 2011; and biodata page of Socialist Republic of Vietnam passport no. [number] (copy) issued in the name of the secondary applicant [in] 2017.
The interview
The Department did not offer the applicant an interview.
Delegate’s decision
In their decision dated 23 August 2018, the Minister’s delegate concluded that:
15.1.If the (main) applicant were to return to Vietnam, they would not face a real chance of persecution now or in the foreseeable future.
15.2.There is no real chance the (main) applicant would suffer serious harm for the reasons advanced if they return to Vietnam; and considering the country information, there is no real risk of the (main) applicant facing significant harm for the reasons advanced if they returned to Vietnam in the foreseeable future.
Further:
16.1.The delegate was not satisfied that the (main) applicant is a refugee as defined by s 5H(1) of the Act, and therefore is not satisfied that the (main) applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s 36(2)(a) of the Act; and
16.2.The delegate was not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Vietnam, there is a real risk the (main) applicant will suffer significant harm as outlined in s 36(2)(aa), and therefore the (main) applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlines in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
For the above reasons, the delegate refused to grant the main applicant a protection visa, and as the secondary applicant does not satisfy s 36(2)(b) or (c), the delegate also refused to grant the secondary applicant a protection visa.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
Departmental documents
The case file.
The Department’s internal records relating to the applicants.
Application for review
On 4 September 2018, the applicants’ representative lodged on the applicant’s behalf an application with the Tribunal for merits review of the delegate’s refusal decision, together with a copy of the Department’s notification letter and protection visa decision record.
On 11 January 2022, to satisfy Medicare requirements, the applicants’ representative wrote to the Tribunal requesting that the Tribunal confirm in writing to the applicants that a review of the decision to refuse to grant a protection visa was pending before the Tribunal. On the same date, written confirmation was sent by the Tribunal to the applicants’ representative.
On 1 July 2022, the Tribunal wrote to the applicants’ representative inviting the applicants to attend a hearing on 19 July 2022 and to provide pre-hearing submissions.
On 7 July 2022, the main applicant gave written notice to the Tribunal of his withdrawal of his previous authorisation of the applicants’ representative (referred to by the Tribunal at hearing and hereafter in this decision record as ‘the former representative’) to receive correspondence on his behalf.
Pre-hearing submissions
The main applicant provided to the Tribunal:
24.1.On 8 July 2022, a Response to hearing invitation signed (on the face of it) by the main applicant confirming (inter alia) that: the main applicant would take part in the hearing as scheduled; the second applicant would not take part in the hearing; the former representative would not be present at the hearing; and the Tribunal be requested to take oral evidence from a person the main applicant identified as his sister.
24.2.On 14 July 2022, an email sent to the Tribunal’s National Registry Mailbox in the following terms:
Would you please read the attached document that outline what is true happening to my case. I am feeling that I am being a victim of swindle or mislead from my migration agency… that is leading me into a big trouble in this immigration matter.
I also attached my company’s confirmation about my job.
I wish you will have a full picture of my case after reading this attachment.
24.3.On 14 July 2022, a letter (attached to the email referred to above) addressed to the Tribunal dated 9 July 2022 and signed (on the face of it) by the main applicant (inter alia) claiming that his former representative had prepared incorrect documents on the applicants’ behalf and that the applicants did not understand the documents; providing an account of the conduct of the applicants’ case by the former representative; and advising that his daughter, the second applicant had returned to Vietnam [in] November 2018 (‘the 9 July letter’).
24.4.On 14 July 2022, a letter (attached to the email referred to above) dated 13 July 2022 from the main applicant’s employer confirming the period and currency of his employment and his weekly hours of work.
The Hearing
The main applicant appeared before the Tribunal and gave evidence and presented arguments at a hearing conducted in person on 19 July 2022. The secondary applicant did not attend the hearing or give any evidence orally by remote or in writing. The main applicant’s sister attended the hearing and gave evidence. The applicants’ former representative was not present at the hearing, in person or remotely. A support person for the main applicant was present throughout the hearing and did not participate. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter (by telephone) in the Vietnamese and English languages.
After the main applicant’s sister departed the hearing room at the direction of the Tribunal, the main applicant gave the following evidence in response to the Tribunal’s invitation to discuss details and information regarding the protection visa application, and in response to the Tribunal’s questioning:
26.1.The Tribunal determined that it was appropriate, given the serious issues raised by the main applicant in the 9 July letter, to commence its questioning about those issues that were directly relevant to the protection visa application. The Tribunal put the following (in italics) to the main applicant and invited him to comment:
26.1.1.You say in your letter that your former representative “has made wrong documents and has harmed me in making me violate the laws”. The main applicant confirmed this as correct.
26.1.2.You say: “[in] June 2018 me and my daughter had a chance to travel to Australia to visit my old, frail parents, we met my older and younger sisters, were very happy.” The main applicant confirmed this as correct.
26.1.3.You say that after you arrived in Australia your father introduced you to the former representative who asked you: “do you want me to prepare an application for a refugee visa to be able to stay in Australia, to work and pay tax, and to get a Medicare Card?” The main applicant confirmed this as correct.
26.1.4.You then went with your sister to the former representative’s house. You say: “I was very happy because in my mind, I wanted to be allowed to stay, so that I can be close to my parents and my sibling families.” The main applicant confirmed this as correct and stated that he really wants to stay close to his family, many of whom live in Australia.
26.1.5.You go on to say: Sometimes the former representative “called me to his house to sign supplementary documents, but I completely didn’t understand what these documents are.” And further that, “I completely don’t even know what refugee is.” The main applicant confirmed this as correct. He stated that he did not know the definition of a refugee under the law, he believed in his representative, and as long as his representative said he could stay in Australia, he would follow his recommendation.
26.1.6.You then say that “My daughter went back to Vietnam [in] November 2018, she told me she was very homesick. My daughter’s name is [name] born on [date].” The main applicant confirmed this as correct and stated that his daughter missed her mother.
26.2.The Tribunal further questioned the main applicant about the issues referred to in paragraph 26.1, and he gave the following evidence in response:
26.2.1.He did not understand the content of the protection visa application because he can’t read English and is not aware of Australian law.
26.2.2.He thought the protection visa application was so he could stay legally in Australia and would have the right to work and get a Medicare card.
26.2.3.His daughter was aware of a visa application that she was included in but had no other understanding or awareness of what it was about.
26.2.4.He gave the former representative copies of his personal CV, birth certificate, and a letter from the Vietnamese Government to his father about his father’s rank and salary while serving in the South Vietnamese military armed forces.
26.2.5.He did not give the former representative any information about claims for protection.
26.2.6.He and his sister did not read the protection visa application, or have it translated; he relied on the former representative and signed the application document. His sister also can’t read English.
26.2.7.The former representative did not explain the contents of the protection visa application to him or his sister.
26.2.8.He has no claims for protection based on political reasons.
26.3.The Tribunal put the protection claims (as summarised in paragraph 12 of this decision record) to the main applicant reading directly from the protection visa application, and further questioned him. The main applicant gave the following evidence in response:
26.3.1.He was not previously aware of the protection claims; the former representative did not explain the claims to him.
26.3.2.The claims are partly true and partly untrue.
26.3.3.The claims that are true relate to his father being a former member of the South Vietnamese military armed forces, serving in the Vietnam War, being detained in a Communist re-education camp from 1975 to late 1977 or early 1978, and for some years afterwards, being imprisoned again without reason, being forced to do hard labour without pay, not being able to register as a member of the family home, and being subject to surveillance by the Vietnamese authorities.
26.3.4.He did not tell the former representative about his father being detained and subject to mistreatment and surveillance. He believes his father told the former representative these details on the occasions that they would see one another at the temple in [location].
26.3.5.He and his daughter are not involved in any political activity. The remainder of the claims as read by the Tribunal are not true.
26.4.The Tribunal invited the main applicant to expand on the claims referred to in paragraph 26.3.3. The main applicant gave the following evidence in response:
26.4.1.When his father was released from the re-education camp, he couldn’t return to the family home because he wasn’t allowed to be part of the household registration. His father was apprehended and detained again without reason and forced into hard labour. He was only a boy at the time and doesn’t remember the detail but does remember visiting his father in prison. After a time, his family asked friends who had connections with important people in the local government to help get his father registered as a member of the family home. Permission was granted and his father came home; he thinks he was aged [age] or [age] at the time.
26.4.2.After his father came home, through the 1980s he thinks, there was pressure from the government for the family to relocate to the new economic region, however their family friends with government connections helped them so that they didn’t have to move. His father worked in various low paid jobs, and his mother worked as a street vendor.
26.4.3.Over the years, up to 2008 when his father came to Australia, the issues his father experienced with the Vietnamese government became less and less, sometimes the local government would call his father to their office and make inquiries, however he doesn’t know what those inquiries were about.
26.4.4.He and his other family members have not ever experienced any issues of concern with the Vietnamese government or authorities.
26.5.After broadly explaining to the main applicant the requirements under Australian law for the grant of a protection visa, the Tribunal invited the main applicant to explain the basis on which he is seeking protection. The main applicant stated that he didn’t know what to say because he doesn’t know the law. The Tribunal then asked the main applicant why he came to Australia and what he thinks will happen to him if he is returned to Vietnam. The main applicant gave the following evidence in response:
26.5.1.He came to Australia because it is a humane country, people are treated well, there is no discrimination because of race or colour, and he can be close to his family.
26.5.2.He has been away from his home country for a long time, he can’t predict what would happen if he went back. He considers Australia a second homeland because his aged parents and other family members are here. He wants to stay close to them and give back to Australia.
26.5.3.He doesn’t have any concrete evidence of fear of harm in Vietnam, but it’s unpredictable there, and he is asking for the Tribunal’s sympathy.
26.6.The former representative told the main applicant that the Department had refused the protection visa application but did not explain to him the reasons for the refusal and did not give him a copy of the Department’s decision record. The former representative prepared the application for review, which the main applicant signed but didn’t read as he can’t read English. He thought about getting copies of the documents related to his case but didn’t know how to go about doing that.
26.7.The Tribunal invited the main applicant to comment on some issues of concern to the Tribunal:
26.7.1.In relation to the secondary applicant returning to Vietnam and no longer being able to rely on the protection visa application, the main applicant stated in response that he understood, that his daughter is stable now in Vietnam, about to graduate from her studies and looking for a job, and not facing any issues with the Vietnamese government or authorities. He stated again that Australia is a beautiful country, and he requests that he be allowed to stay and work here.
26.7.2.The Tribunal asked the main applicant, based on certain statements he made in the 9 July letter and during his oral evidence at hearing about why he came to Australia, and given the legal requirements for the grant of a protection visa, whether he understood that the Tribunal must seriously question his claims for protection. The main applicant stated in response that he wanted to say sorry for his mistake in trusting the former representative, and for not knowing the law and the definition of a refugee, and that he is asking for leniency.
26.8.The Tribunal referred to the 9 July letter, in particular the matters relating to the conduct of the former representative. The Tribunal explained to the main applicant that:
26.8.1.These matters are separate from the matters relating to the main applicant’s claims for protection and will have no bearing on the Tribunal’s decision on the review of the Department’s refusal decision.
26.8.2.The Tribunal is not a policing body, and it is not part of its role to have any oversight of the conduct of migration representatives and agents.
26.8.3.The body charged with the oversight responsibility is OMARA – the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority – and if the main applicant wishes, he can lodge a complaint through the OMARA website.
26.8.4.The hearing attendant would provide the main applicant with the OMARA website address at the conclusion of the hearing.
26.9.The Tribunal invited the main applicant to comment on the matters in the 9 July letter relating to the conduct of the former representative. The main applicant gave evidence in response that was consistent with the 9 July letter.
26.10.The Tribunal invited the main applicant to make any other comment in relation to his case as he wished. The main applicant gave evidence in response that he was thankful for the opportunity to be heard by the Tribunal, that he wanted to let the Tribunal know about the conduct of the former representative, that he had made mistakes due to his lack of understanding of English and the protection visa application, and that he seeks the Tribunal’s sympathy and consideration to stay in Australia, look after his parents, continue his job and new life, and to contribute to Australia and the economy.

The Tribunal considered and granted the main applicant’s request that the Tribunal take evidence from his sister. While the main applicant remained in the hearing room, the main applicant’s sister gave evidence relating to the conduct of the former representative that was consistent with the 9 July letter, and in addition she stated that:
27.1.She and her brother were unaware of what the protection visa application form was about as they don’t understand English or the law or what a refugee is. They tried to ask the former representative questions about the application but were told not to worry and to leave it to him.
27.2.The main applicant’s daughter, the secondary applicant, didn’t know anything about the protection visa application, only that it existed and that she could go to school in Australia.
27.3.The former representative told her brother, the main applicant, that he could get Medicare and stay and work in Australia. Her brother is here because Australia is beautiful and free, and he can be close to his parents.
27.4.Her concern about her brother being returned to Vietnam is the effect that would have on their parents’ mental and physical health in not having their son close by.
Post-hearing submissions
Post-hearing submissions were not provided to the Tribunal by the main applicant.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the main applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether he is entitled to complementary protection. The relevant law is summarised below and extracted in Attachment A to this decision record.
Relevant law
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in Attachment A to this decision record.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in Attachment A to this decision record.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
Credibility considerations
The Tribunal has taken into account the AAT’s Migration and Refugee Division Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility both in the conduct of the hearing and in evaluating the applicant’s evidence.
The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’ or that it is for the reason claimed. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists, or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all the statutory elements are made out. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case must be supplied by the applicant in as much detail as is necessary to enable the Tribunal to establish the relevant facts. The Tribunal is not required to make the applicant's case, nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any or all the allegations made by an applicant.
Relevant country information considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration. The Tribunal considers the information set out in Attachment B to this decision record to be relevant to the .
Analysis, Findings and Reasons
The Tribunal accepts that the main applicant is a citizen of Vietnam who is living in Australia.
The Tribunal accepts that the secondary applicant is a citizen of Vietnam who is no longer living in Australia.
The Tribunal accepts the veracity of the main applicant’s claims and evidence set out in paragraphs 24, 25 and 26 of this decision record.
The Tribunal accepts the veracity of the evidence given by the main applicant’s sister set out in paragraph 27 of this decision record.
Based on the evidence set out in this decision record, and taking into account the mandatory, credibility, and relevant country information considerations, the Tribunal finds that:
43.1.The main applicant had, prior to the hearing, no awareness or understanding of the substance or effect of the protection visa application prepared and lodged on his behalf by the former representative.
43.2.The main applicant had, as at the time of the hearing, no awareness or understanding of the substance of the Department’s record of decision relating to its refusal of the protection visa application.
43.3.The detention, mistreatment and surveillance experienced by the main applicant’s father as a former member of the South Vietnamese military armed forces following the end of the Vietnam War in 1975 ceased some years before the father relocated to Australia in 2008.
43.4.The main applicant and his other family members have never themselves experienced any issues of concern in relation to the Vietnamese government as a result of the father’s membership of the South Vietnamese military armed forces or for any other reason.
43.5.The main applicant’s predominant reason for wanting to stay in Australia is to be close to his aging parents and other siblings and their families, and to continue to work and build a new life here.
43.6.If the main applicant were returned to Vietnam, there is no real chance that he would be persecuted, and accordingly the main applicant does not have a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ as required by s 5H(1)(a) of the Act and as defined in s 5J(1) of the Act.
43.7.There do not exist substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the main applicant being removed from Australia to Vietnam there is a real risk the main applicant will suffer significant harm.
CONCLUSIONS
Main applicant
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the main applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the main applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the main applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa).
On the evidence before the Tribunal, there is no suggestion that the main applicant satisfies s 36(2)(b) or (c) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the main applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2)(b) or (c).
Secondary applicant
So far as is relevant to this matter, s 36(2)(c) and (d) of the Act provide that a criterion for a protection visa is that the member of the same family unit is a non-citizen in Australia. This means that a protection visa may only be granted if the secondary applicant is in Australia.
The main applicant disclosed in the 9 July letter, and the Department’s movement records confirm, that the secondary applicant departed Australia on 20 November 2018.
Based on the circumstances set out above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the secondary applicant is not in Australia. Therefore, the secondary applicant does not satisfy the requirements of s 36(2) of the Act and is ineligible for a protection visa under s 36(2)(b) or (c).
decision
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the main applicant a protection visa.
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the secondary applicant a protection visa.
Kate Chapple
Member

CASE NUMBER 1825807 DECISION RECORD – ATTACHMENT A
Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…
CASE NUMBER 1825807 DECISION RECORD – ATTACHMENT B
Relevant Country Information
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) Country Information Report Vietnam, 11 January 2022 provides in part the following information:
People whose relatives were involved in the Vietnam War
3.108 Some asylum seekers claim that their relatives (often a grandparent) were involved in the Vietnam War in support of South Vietnam and that they face continuing discrimination as a result. In-country sources told DFAT that some subtle discrimination may exist, for example in educational opportunities, but others told DFAT this was previously the case but is no longer true. Alleged discrimination may relate to an inability to join the CPV where party members might have access to opportunities through their connections that others do not have. Experiences in small communities might be different where unwritten laws and customs may cause some low-level discrimination. The yellow and red flag of the former country of South Vietnam is sensitive and cannot be displayed publicly.
3.109 On the balance of available evidence, DFAT assesses that discrimination against the relatives of people who were involved in the Vietnam War, if it is exists at all, is low level. DFAT does not rule out the possibility of such discrimination but is not aware of a strong pattern of such behaviour. The situation would be different for a person who has political opinions that favour a South Vietnamese or pro-American identity.
5.24 Internal relocation and re-registration in a new residence is possible, but bureaucratic difficulties may arise for certain people. For example, women whose husbands die may have difficulty getting cooperation from their in-laws, or recently released prisoners might be refused registration by police who do not want ‘troublemakers’ in their district.
Household registration books (hộ khẩu)
5.40 Hộ khẩu is household registration. DFAT understands that physical hộ khẩu books are no longer issued and have been replaced by information held in a national database that is linked to a person’s CIC. DFAT understands that, although the books are no longer issued, they are still in use by some. Hộ khẩu are not issued by Vietnamese embassies and consulates abroad but registration of residence is possible at police stations on arrival.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection Standard Q & A Report – Vietnam: CI170217115230482 10 March 2017 provides in part the following information:
2. How were ex-soldiers of the army treated by the Vietnamese Government?
An April 2012 UK Home Office report refers to a US Department of State background note which indicates that following the end of the Vietnam war in 1975 and the re-unification of the country, ‘[h]undreds of thousands of former South Vietnamese government and military officials, as well as intellectuals previously opposed to the communist cause, were sent to study socialist doctrine in re-education camps, where they remained for periods ranging from months to over 10 years’.
The review by Peter Edwards of the book on the South Vietnamese Army by Monash University academic, Nathalie Huynh Chau Nguyen, states that:
After the war ARVN soldiers, especially officers, were subjected by the victorious communists to even harsher penalties than civilians, including years of forced labor and indoctrination in ‘re-education camps’. Thousands died from sickness and starvation; those who survived and didn’t manage to escape to the west were treated with contempt and discrimination, which were even extended to their children and grandchildren. The main South Vietnamese military cemetery at Bien Hoa was vandalised and virtually abandoned until recent years.
In August 1995, Human Rights Watch reported that ‘[i]n 1987 and 1988, thousands of persons detained without trial for “re-education” were released. At present, virtually all such “re-education” detainees who were held continuously since the 1975-1976 period without trial have been freed’. An October 1998 Amnesty International report indicates that many re-education camps in Vietnam were closed in the early 1990s.
In January 1993, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) advised that the Vietnamese authorities maintained that there were ‘no military or civilian officers of the pre-1975 southern regime still in detention. All have now been released according to official sources’. A further DFAT advice from February 1999 indicates that:
The situation regarding the treatment of supporters of the former South Vietnamese government is one that has changed significantly in the 24 years since the fall of that administration.
In the first years after the fall of the South Vietnamese government there were mass arrests of senior members of the South Vietnamese government and military, and tens of thousands more were forced to live in re-education camps for varying periods, in some cases for over ten years. The situation had changed significantly by 1996. An economic reform program (with direct social consequences) was adopted in 1986. The last re-education camps were closed in 1989.
Currently there are some people held in detention for activities which are political in nature, but considered crimes by the government of Vietnam. However the arrest, trial and detention of such people stems from prohibited political or religious activities, not allegiance to the former government of South Vietnam. In late 1998, a presidential amnesty was extended to a number of these people. Further amnesties have been foreshadowed for 1999 and also the year 2000. ‘Advice concerning family background: update’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 12 February 1999, CX67252
The US Department of State (USDOS) report on human rights practices in Vietnam for 1999 states, however, that ‘[s]ome military veterans of the former Republic of Vietnam remain incarcerated for activities after 1975’, although the USDOS report on Vietnam for the following year indicates that no military veterans of the former Republic of Vietnam were ‘known to be incarcerated for their activities after 1975’.
A June 2000 Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRBC) response to information request found no reports specific to the treatment of former officers in the South Vietnam forces and their families, or the treatment of the families of former officers in the South Vietnam forces sent for re-education. The IRBC report refers to a May 2000 Human Rights Watch report, which notes that ‘[f]ormerly imprisoned political dissidents and re-education camp inmates, including religious dissidents’, appeared to be routinely subjected to monitoring by the authorities for up to five years after their release, under Article 30 of Vietnam’s criminal code.
In relation to discrimination against former soldiers of the South Vietnamese Army, the February 1999 DFAT advice indicates that:
The embassy has no evidence of significant discrimination or harassment against supporters of the former regime, or against people of particular provinces. More likely is positive discrimination in the bureaucracy in favour of those with links to families that were strong supporters of the former North Vietnamese government. In competing for jobs in the Communist Party or in senior levels of government ministries, having a “bad family background” could still be a handicap, but one that could be overcome.
A further DFAT advice dated 24 August 1999 also comments that in 1999, there was ‘little evidence of serious discrimination or harassment of Vietnamese citizens because of links to the former South Vietnamese government’. A decade previously, ‘links with the former southern regime resulted in a number of persons being denied university places, but this situation has improved’. The development of the private sector had ‘increased employment opportunities for such persons’, but ‘entry to party and government positions for such persons may still be difficult’.
A later report by the USDOS on human rights practices in Vietnam for 2004 indicates, however, that:
Some persons formerly interned in reeducation camps on the basis of association with the pre 1975 government continued to report varying levels of discrimination as they and their families sought access to housing, education, and employment. Some military veterans of the pre-1975 government still faced economic hardship as a result of past employment restrictions and discrimination, but none were known still to be incarcerated for their activities before 1975. These veterans and their families generally were unable to obtain employment with the Government. This prohibition was less restrictive than in previous years because of the growth of job opportunities in the private sector.
The USDOS report on human rights practices in Vietnam for 2005 provides similar information, but also refers to ‘many persons formerly interned in reeducation camps on the basis of association with the pre 1975 government’ being ‘well integrated into society’.
The USDOS report on human rights practices in Vietnam for 2008 also states that ‘[s]ome persons formerly interned in reeducation camps on the basis of association with the pre 1975 government continued to report varying levels of official and social discrimination as they and their families sought access to housing, education, and employment, although the overall incidence of such discrimination declined substantially as previously enforced prohibitions eased and the percentage of war veterans in the work force decreased’.
The USDOS report on human rights practices in Vietnam for 2010 does not mention the situation of persons associated with the pre-1975 government.
The answer to Question 3 in an October 2008 Refugee Review Tribunal research response refers to sources that provide information on the attitude of the Vietnamese authorities to supporters of the former South Vietnamese government.
An October 2009 Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation (ACCORD) query response indicates that no specific information was found on the situation of Vietnamese officers who collaborated with the US forces during the Vietnam War, or their families, but refers to reports containing information on the situation of former Vietnamese military personnel who worked with the US forces or fought against North Vietnam during the Vietnam War, and their families.
4. Is there any evidence that family members of ex-soldiers are targeted and discriminated against for their family’s involvement in the South Vietnam Army?
There are reports of family members of former soldiers in the South Vietnamese Army facing discrimination which has lessened over time, although sources were located that refer to such persons continuing to experience some disadvantage.
As previously mentioned in the answer to Question 2 above, the August 2016 review by historian Peter Edwards of a book on the South Vietnamese Army by Monash University academic Nathalie Huynh Chau Nguyen, indicates that former ARVN soldiers who survived the re-education camps and did not escape to the west ‘were treated with contempt and discrimination, which were even extended to their children and grandchildren’. The article does not indicate if this discrimination is ongoing.
The earlier USDOS report on human rights practices in Vietnam for 2004 refers to ‘[s]ome persons formerly interned in reeducation camps on the basis of association with the pre 1975 government’ continuing ‘to report varying levels of discrimination as they and their families sought access to housing, education, and employment’, and to some military veterans of the pre-1975 government and their families generally being ‘unable to obtain employment with the Government. This prohibition was less restrictive than in previous years because of the growth of job opportunities in the private sector’.
Later USDOS reports refer to a lessening of such discrimination. The USDOS report on human rights practices in Vietnam for 2007 notes that:
While many persons formerly interned in reeducation camps on the basis of association with the pre-1975 government were well integrated into society, some continued to report varying levels of discrimination as they and their families sought access to housing, education, and employment. In the past some military veterans of the pre-1975 South Vietnamese government and their families faced economic hardship as a result of past employment restrictions and discrimination. Few of these prohibitions remained, and the declining percentage of war veterans belonging to the labor force also lessened the incidence of such discrimination.
The USDOS report on human rights practices in Vietnam for 2008 states that ‘[s]ome persons formerly interned in reeducation camps on the basis of association with the pre 1975 government continued to report varying levels of official and social discrimination as they and their families sought access to housing, education, and employment, although the overall incidence of such discrimination declined substantially as previously enforced prohibitions eased and the percentage of war veterans in the work force decreased’.
The USDOS report on human rights practices in Vietnam for 2010 does not mention the situation of persons associated with the pre-1975 government, or their families.
An April 2015 article in the Financial Times refers to Nguyen Cao Ky Duyen, the co-host of Paris By Night, a variety show for expatriate Vietnamese in France and the US but also popular inside Vietnam, who is also the daughter of Nguyen Cao Ky, a fighter pilot and former premier of South Vietnam. They escaped from Vietnam in 1975. Her father had returned to the country almost 30 years later, and she had also returned gradually, still spending a lot of time in the US. She acknowledged that her celebrity status has helped ease her re-entry, and also had ‘first-hand reminders of tensions that remain: her show has irritated Hanoi in the past and is circulated in Vietnam mainly via bootlegged DVDs’.
The previously mentioned December 2015 Vietnam Human Rights Network report on human rights in Vietnam refers to ongoing discrimination against supporters of the former South Vietnamese government and their children. The report indicates that ‘[a]lthough the war ended four decades ago, Vietnam is still pursuing a policy of discrimination and stigma against supporters of the old regime as if the war were still going on’. According to the report, shortly after 1975, the Communist government ‘applied profiling measures’ to prevent the children of military officers and civil servants of the former Republic of Vietnam and families who had connections with the losing side ‘from achieving a meaningful future. Forty years later, although the concentration camps have been closed, the profiling policy still creates great educational, political, and economic inequality gaps between the South Vietnamese People and those associated with the victors’.
The Vietnam Human Rights Network report cites a December 2015 Bloomberg News article, which indicates that ‘[e]ven as Vietnam relaxes old regulations that punished those associated with the former Republic of Vietnam, many in the south believe the system still favors those with Communist ties’. The article refers to Vietnam remaining ‘a stratified nation in which the legacy of discrimination against former US allies holds the economy back by keeping some of the country’s best and brightest from top positions at state-owned companies and government posts. The unresolved war tensions at home also keep away potential investment and the needed expertise of many overseas Vietnamese’. Following the war, ‘trusted Communist Party members and their families were awarded with top posts, while Vietnamese who were allied with the US were punished and their children denied opportunities’. Those policies had ‘contributed to an enduring system that still appears to tilt toward northerners and Communist Party members’. According to the article:
Whole families, typically extending to three generations, were deemed as having “bad family backgrounds” because of their ties to the fallen government. That system of background checks, which still exists today, prevented many from getting jobs and entering colleges. The harsh treatment contributed to the exodus of more than 1 million Vietnamese as refugees.
…In many ways, enmity has softened over the decades between the once bitter enemies, and regional attitudes also contribute to the political and economic imbalance… Vietnamese with ties to the old regime can now gain some positions in government and state-owned enterprises, though they likely can’t hold top positions, said [former Hanoi resident and author of The Winning Side, a book about Vietnam after reunification, Huy] Duc and other researchers. …Postwar terminology that have prevented access are still a part of the southern Vietnamese psyche and vernacular today: official forms for family histories required for schools and jobs ask applicants to list what family members did “before and after April 30, 1975.” To this day, the term “nguy” for “puppet regime” is still in common usage. …Meanwhile, veterans and others who “contributed to the revolution” – a heroic designation still used today – and their families receive mandated monthly allowances, health insurance and preferential treatment in school admissions and employment. Communist veterans are treated to priority airline boarding.
The most recent USDOS report on human rights practices in Vietnam for 2016 does not specifically mention the treatment of family members of former soldiers of the South Vietnamese Army’.
The answer to Question 3 in the previously mentioned October 2008 Refugee Review Tribunal research response includes information on whether the Vietnamese authorities denied household registration to persons whose family members may have been associated with the South Vietnamese armed forces.
The October 2009 ACCORD query response refers to reports which include information on the situation of former Vietnamese military personnel who worked with the US forces or fought against North Vietnam during the Vietnam War, and their families.
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection Background Paper – Vietnam: Household Registration (hộ khẩu) 30 September 2013 provides in part the following information:
3.3.1 Surveillance (page 16)
The most recent USDOS annual report on human rights practices in Vietnam states that the Vietnamese government “maintains a system of household registration and block wardens to monitor the population”. According to USDOS, the system is less intrusive than in the past, however the Ministry of Public Security continues to “monitor individuals suspected of engaging, or being likely to engage, in unauthorized political activities”. A 2010 book written by Bill Hayton, a former BBC correspondent to Vietnam also states that household registration is still serving its original purpose of controlling the population: “from secret police files and residency permits to neighbourhood wardens and cultured family campaigns, Vietnam has built a low-tech but effective system of near-total surveillance”.

[2022] AATA 3629

21 July 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction

Appeal