1929335 (Refugee)

The decision concerned applications for protection visas made by Applicant A, a father, and Applicant B, his daughter, who had arrived in Australia by sea. The dispute centred on whether they had established a well-founded fear of persecution in Vietnam, which would engage Australia's protection obligations under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the Refugees Convention. The applications were heard by Roslyn Smidt.

The court was required to determine whether Applicant A held genuine fears of persecution based on his Catholic religion, his actual or imputed anti-Communist and pro-democracy political opinions, his illegal departure from Vietnam, his status as a failed asylum seeker, and the cumulative impact of these factors. Similarly, the court had to assess Applicant B's claims of fear based on her religion, her association with her father, her actual or imputed political opinions, her gender, her illegal departure, her failed asylum seeker status, the time spent in Australia, and the cumulative effect of these elements.

The court found that while Applicant A was a Catholic who attended church regularly and had faced some minor teasing due to his religion, he had not experienced significant problems related to his faith prior to July 2012. His claim of being discharged from military service due to his religion was doubted, and even if true, it had not led to serious issues in the subsequent 24 years. The court concluded that ordinary Catholics in Vietnam did not generally face significant problems, and Applicant A's family continued to practice their faith without apparent difficulty. The court also noted that the applicants' identity documents were accepted as genuine, but this did not determine the merits of their protection claims. The court ultimately affirmed the decisions under review, indicating that the applicants had not established a well-founded fear of persecution.