1908548 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Vietnamese citizen. The applicant claimed he left Vietnam due to a lack of human rights, widespread government and police corruption, and harassment by the police. He alleged he was detained, beaten, and questioned by police in January 2013 after being present at a court case involving Catholics, and subsequently required to attend police headquarters multiple times a week. He also claimed a poor police clearance report, stating involvement in anti-government activities, prevented him from obtaining employment in Vietnam. The applicant arrived in Australia in April 2013, having travelled from Vietnam via another country. He later married an Australian citizen and had two children with her.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Vietnam, he would suffer significant harm, as per section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant country information and the provisions of the Act concerning refugee status and complementary protection.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa. It found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution. While acknowledging the applicant's claims of police harassment and detention, the Tribunal noted that he departed Vietnam lawfully on his own passport and subsequently obtained a new passport from the Vietnamese Consulate in Sydney without difficulty. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's assertion that he was suspected of belonging to the Viet Tan group due to his presence at a protest, but found no evidence to support this suspicion or any direct involvement in political activism. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a real risk of suffering significant harm upon return to Vietnam, as contemplated by section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not satisfy any of the criteria for a protection visa, including those relating to family members holding such visas.