1907277 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by two applicants, citizens of Vietnam and married to each other, against a decision to affirm the refusal of their protection visas. The applicants claimed they faced mistreatment and harm upon return to Vietnam due to their opposition to the communist government and its corruption, which had allegedly impacted their business. The court was required to determine whether the applicants faced a real chance of serious harm or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Vietnam.

The court considered the applicants' claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84 and relevant guidelines and country information. While accepting the applicants' identity and nationality, the court found their evidence regarding their fear of harm to be vague, inconsistent, and shifting. Specifically, the first applicant's evidence about potential problems arising from his protection visa application was not persuasive, with him initially stating he had no concerns, then suggesting the application might cause issues, and finally stating he did not believe it would. The court also noted the applicants' stated desire to return to Vietnam and their admission that they had not opposed or protested the government.

Based on the inconsistent and unconvincing nature of the applicants' evidence, the court concluded that they had not established a well-founded fear of persecution under s 5J(1)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Furthermore, the court was not satisfied that the applicants faced a real chance of serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future were they to return to Vietnam, even if their protection visa application became known. Consequently, the court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicants did not meet the criteria for being refugees.