1929526 (Refugee)

This decision concerns applications for review of a delegate's refusal to grant protection visas to a married couple from Vietnam. The applicants claimed they feared arrest and incarceration for non-payment of bribes, faced threats from loan sharks, and had participated in protests against the construction of a Formosa factory. They also alleged they had been questioned by police and received caution notices. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants had established a well-founded fear of persecution or significant harm if returned to Vietnam, and whether they met the criteria for a protection visa.

The Tribunal considered the applicants' claims in light of the available evidence and country information. It accepted that the applicants had operated a business in Vietnam and were required to pay bribes to low-level government officials, but found insufficient evidence regarding the period, quantum, and impact of these bribes. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the applicants' evidence regarding their participation in protests at the Formosa factory site, and found that country information did not corroborate their accounts of protests in 2014. Furthermore, the Tribunal found the evidence regarding police appearance notices to be inconsistent and lacking sufficient detail to establish their purpose or consequences. While accepting the applicants had borrowed money from a loan shark, the Tribunal found they had repaid the debt and did not accept claims of ongoing accrual of interest.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' evidence was vague and inconsistent on several key aspects, including the reasons for winding down their business, the nature of their travel to other countries, and their intentions upon arriving in Australia. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the applicants did not apply for protection visas until 22 months after their visitor visas expired, during which time they were aware they were living in Australia unlawfully, and found no credible justification for this delay. The Tribunal also found the applicants' claims regarding ongoing threats from loan sharks and police investigations to be lacking in credibility. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicants had not satisfied the onus of establishing the statutory elements for a protection visa.