1907315 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of decisions by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse the applicant, a citizen of Vietnam, a Safe Haven Enterprise visa. The applicant arrived in Australia by sea in April 2013. Due to the applicant's mode of arrival, the applicant was not considered an "unauthorised maritime arrival" and therefore the decision to refuse the visa was reviewable by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant had previously been granted a Temporary Safe Haven visa, but subsequent legal developments clarified that this did not trigger a statutory bar preventing further visa applications in Australia for individuals who arrived by sea at the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether there was a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted in Vietnam for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Vietnam, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The applicant's claims for protection were based on alleged police corruption in Vietnam, which he stated led to harassment and difficulties in supporting his family, and his fear of physical assault and detention.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the 'Refugee Law Guidelines' and 'Complementary Protection Guidelines'. The applicant asserted that he left Vietnam due to government corruption and harassment by police, who demanded payment for favours and made life difficult for those who did not comply. The Tribunal was required to assess whether these circumstances constituted persecution or significant harm as defined by the Act. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant's initial claim of being an unlawful maritime arrival was later clarified by Full Federal Court decisions, meaning the statutory bars that might have prevented his application were not applicable.

The decision under review was affirmed.