1901566 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by applicants from Vietnam. The applicants claimed they feared persecution due to their practice of Hoa Hao Buddhism and an imputed anti-government political opinion. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) (the Act), which relates to Australia's obligations under the Refugees Convention, or the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the applicants' claims regarding their religious practice and an imputed political opinion. It found that the applicants were registered followers of Hoa Hao Buddhism and that their practice, within government-sanctioned boundaries, was unlikely to attract adverse attention from Vietnamese authorities. The Tribunal also found the applicants' evidence regarding threats and summonses from the Vietnamese authorities to be lacking in credibility, concluding that these claims were manufactured. Furthermore, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants would feel compelled to speak out against the government or would be imputed with an anti-government political opinion, noting their past conduct and lack of political involvement. The Tribunal also considered the significant delay in the applicants' application for protection visas, finding it inconsistent with a genuine fear of persecution.

The Tribunal further assessed the risk to the applicants as failed asylum seekers, considering country information that indicated Vietnamese authorities generally do not prosecute failed asylum seekers unless they are suspected of organising people-smuggling operations. The Tribunal also noted that the applicants had legally departed Vietnam on valid passports, which was inconsistent with claims of being dissidents. Regarding the loss of household registration, the Tribunal found, based on country information, that the applicants could reapply for registration upon their return and would not be denied access to services or the ability to subsist. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real chance the applicants would suffer significant harm if returned to Vietnam, either individually or cumulatively, and therefore did not meet the criteria for a protection visa. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.