2004647 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa by Mr [A], a national of Vietnam. The dispute arose because the delegate refused to grant the visa, and Mr [A] sought review of that decision. The case was heard by Dr N Manetta, a Senior Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr [A] met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(1A)(b) of the Act, specifically whether he qualified as a "refugee" under section 36(2)(a) or whether there were substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia under section 36(2)(aa). These criteria were to be assessed in light of Mr [A]'s alleged participation in protests and meetings in Australia associated with the Viet Tan movement, and his stated faith as a Roman Catholic.

The Tribunal was required to determine the credibility of Mr [A]'s account of events, both in Vietnam and in Australia. The Tribunal found Mr [A]'s evidence regarding his arrest and subsequent events in Vietnam to be implausible, and therefore did not accept that he feared persecution on return to Vietnam due to his participation in a protest there. Similarly, the Tribunal did not believe there were substantial grounds to conclude he would suffer significant harm as a consequence of his removal from Australia due to this participation. While accepting that Mr [A] attended Viet Tan demonstrations and private meetings in Australia and was not a member of the organisation, the Tribunal found no substantial grounds to believe his attendance had come to the attention of Vietnamese security authorities. The Tribunal noted that if such knowledge existed, Mr [A] would face a real risk of harm, but concluded that to find this without evidence would be speculative.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that Mr [A]'s application for a protection visa did not meet the eligibility criteria prescribed in the Act. The decision under review was affirmed.