1923038 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant her a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm if returned to Vietnam. The matter was heard by Scott Clarey.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant qualified as a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, or whether she met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing whether she had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, or a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Vietnam.

The court considered the applicant's claims, which were made in her visa application and described her opposition to the Vietnamese Communist regime, her social media posts, warnings from local authorities, and alleged mistreatment. However, the court noted that the applicant's claims were vague and difficult to follow. Crucially, the applicant declined to attend a scheduled hearing, thereby waiving her opportunity to elaborate on her claims and for the Tribunal to ask clarifying questions. In the absence of further information or clarification, and having regard to the applicant's stated reasons for leaving Vietnam and her fears upon return, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.