1920552 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Vietnamese national, sought review of a decision to refuse him a protection visa. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal by the Federal Circuit Court following an earlier decision to quash the Tribunal's initial determination. The applicant, a Catholic, claimed to have engaged in environmental activism and pro-life protests in Vietnam, which he asserted led to an imputed political opinion and opposition to the government. He also alleged unlawful departure from Vietnam and violent police interrogation.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant held a well-founded fear of persecution for an essential or significant reason, including his actual or imputed religious beliefs or activities, or his unlawful departure from Vietnam. The Tribunal also had to consider whether there was a real risk of significant harm to the applicant under the complementary protection provisions of the Act, which involved assessing the reasonableness of relocation within Vietnam, the availability of state protection, or whether any risk was faced by the population generally.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. It found that the applicant's claims of persecution for religious reasons lacked credibility due to unsatisfactory evidence and inconsistencies with country information. The Tribunal noted the prevalence of Catholicism in Vietnam and its institutional acceptance by the state, concluding that the applicant's faith-based activities were unlikely to have attracted adverse attention from the authorities. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not hold a well-founded fear of persecution related to his unlawful departure from Vietnam. The assessment of risk for complementary protection purposes was found to be the same as for convention protection.