2004793 (Refugee)

2004793 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1279 (20 February 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW:               Applications for review of two decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa subclass XE-790 Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (‘SHEV’) under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’)
REPRESENTATIVE:  Ms Nhi (Michelle) Huynh (MARN: 1069190)
CASE NUMBERS:  2004793 & 2203061
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Vietnam
MEMBER:Kate Chapple
DATE:20 February 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicant protection visas in:
Case number 2004793 (SHEV application made on 27 January 2017); anda.
Case number 2203061 (SHEV application made on 9 June 2020).b.

Statement made on 20 February 2023 at 8:58am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Vietnam – religion and imputed political opinion – brother of Catholic priest – membership and activities in church youth groups – harassed, questioned and threatened by police – fear of arrest, imprisonment and torture – country information – credibility – likely misrepresentation of age on arrival to seek advantage as minor – vague and inconsistent claims and evidence – authenticity and translation of supporting documentation – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5AA, 46A, 48A, 65, 91K, 411
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth),
CASES
DBB16 v MIBP [2018] FCAFC 178
MICMSMA v CBW20 [2021] FCAFC 63
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
OVERVIEW

The applicant, a Vietnamese man likely aged in his mid to late [Decade], was raised by his parents in the Catholic faith, and at a young age, not wanting to continue schooling, went to live with his much older brother, a Catholic priest in charge of a parish in the Vinh diocese, Nghe An province, Vietnam. Over the years he spent serving his brother in the parish, the applicant claims to have been involved in faith-related groups and activities that were perceived by the Vietnamese authorities as anti-government, and attracted adverse attention from police. He claims that he became scared of what would happen to him, so, with the support of his brother and parents, left Vietnam.
The applicant claims that if he returns to Vietnam, his past and intended future faith-related activities will result in him being targeted and harmed by the Vietnamese authorities.
According to Department of Home Affairs (‘the Department’) records, the applicant, a citizen of Vietnam, arrived in Australia by sea at [Location 1] [in] April 2013.
The applicant was granted a Temporary Safe Haven (Subclass 449 - Humanitarian Stay (Temporary)) visa (‘Temporary Safe Haven visa’) on 15 October 2014 by the Department. The applicant was considered at that time to be an unauthorised maritime arrival (as was defined in s 5AA of the Act).
On 1 June 2016, the Department invited the applicant to make an application for a SHEV, notifying him that the Minister had exercised his discretion to lift the s 46A bar that would otherwise prevent the applicant, then considered an unauthorised maritime arrival, from making a visa application in Australia.
The applicant applied for a SHEV on 27 January 2017 (‘the SHEV 1 application’).
On 21 June 2018, a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs made a decision to refuse to grant the applicant a SHEV under s 65 of the Act on the basis that the applicant did not meet the applicable visa criteria. On the basis that the applicant was at the time considered an unauthorised maritime arrival, and therefore a fast track applicant (as defined in s 5(1) of the Act), the Department referred the refusal decision to the Immigration Assessment Authority (‘IAA’) for a fast track review under Part 7AA of the Act.
On 6 August 2018, the Full Federal Court handed down a judgment in DBB16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 178. The Court declared that the appointment of the proclaimed port in the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands as a proclaimed port was invalid. This meant that all persons who arrived via the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands between 23 January 2002 and 1 June 2013, and did not subsequently enter Australia at an excised offshore place, are not unauthorised maritime arrivals. The effect was that the applicant is not an unauthorised maritime arrival, and therefore not a fast track applicant, and a decision to refuse to grant the applicant a SHEV is not a fast track decision (as defined in s 5(1) of the Act). Instead, it is a Part 7-reviewable decision able to be reviewed by the Migration and Refugee Division of the Tribunal under s 411 of the Act.
On 28 March 2019, and again on 26 February 2020, the Department notified the applicant that he was not a fast track applicant and of his right to seek review of the refusal decision by the Tribunal under Part 7 of the Act.
On 10 March 2020, the applicant applied for review of the refusal decision by the Tribunal, such review bearing case reference number 2004793 (‘the SHEV 1 review application’).
On 7 May 2020, the Department notified the applicant that he is not an unauthorised maritime arrival. It was considered then that because the applicant was not an unauthorised maritime arrival, he was subject to the s 91K bar preventing him from making a valid visa application, other than an application for another Temporary Safe Haven visa; and, accordingly, the applicant was notified the SHEV 1 application is invalid and cannot be considered.
On 22 May 2020, the Department notified the applicant that the Minister had made a determination to lift the s 91K bar and the s 48A bar, allowing the applicant to make another SHEV application.
The applicant applied for a SHEV, a second time, on 9 June 2020 (‘the SHEV 2 application’).
Following the Full Federal Court judgment in MICMSMA v CBW20 [2021] FCAFC 63, the s 91K bar does not apply to applicants who arrived in Australia by sea at the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands.
Accordingly, the SHEV 1 application is valid, and the SHEV 1 review application is valid.
On 4 March 2022, the Minister’s delegate made a decision to refuse to grant the applicant a SHEV, and on the same day, the applicant applied for review of the refusal decision by the Tribunal, such review bearing case reference number 2203061 (‘the SHEV 2 review application’).
The SHEV 2 application is valid, and the SHEV 2 review application is valid.
This decision record is a statement of the Tribunal’s reasons and decisions in relation to the reviews bearing case reference numbers 2004793 and 2203061.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
Protection visa applications and related material
Department’s Age Determination Assessment Reports dated 29 August 2013 and 9 September 2013.
Letter to applicant from the Department dated 12 March 2014 regarding unauthorised access to personal information.
The SHEV 1 application.
Applicant’s supporting statutory declaration dated 13 January 2017.
Letter dated 1 October 2013 from former Catholic bishops in Vietnam to the Department.
Various country information and news reports.
The SHEV 2 application.
English translation of ‘Decision regarding the appointment of: execution Board of the Parish Youth’ signed by Pastor [A] on 10/8/2011.
English translation of ‘Letter of Guarantee’ signed by Pastor [A] on 25/05/2020.
Letter dated 28 October 2021 from [Rev. B], Chaplain of the [Organisation].
Other Departmental records:
29.1.Decision records.
29.2.Interview audio files.
29.3.Case file.
29.4.Internal records relating to the applicant.
Applications for review
The Tribunal wrote to the representative inviting the applicant to attend a combined hearing of the two applications for review on 3 February 2023 and to provide pre-hearing submissions.
Prior to the hearing, the representative provided to the Tribunal:
31.1.Confirmation that the applicant intended to participate in the hearing with the assistance of the representative.
31.2.Representative’s submission dated 2 February 2023.
The Hearing
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal at a hearing conducted in person on 3 February 2023, with the assistance of an interpreter (in person) in the Vietnamese and English languages. The applicant’s representative was present at the hearing via video link then telephone.
The Tribunal summarised the legal and procedural background to the applications for review, noting that the applicant’s claims are essentially the same across both SHEV applications. The representative concurred.
The applicant gave the following evidence:
34.1.The Tribunal noted the historical issues with the Department in seeking to establish the applicant’s date of birth in the absence of a birth certificate, and asked the applicant to state what he believed to be his date of birth and age. The applicant said he was born on [Date] and is aged [Age].
34.2.The applicant was born in [Town], Nghe An province, and lived there during his early years with his parents and three older siblings, a brother and two sisters. His father, no longer alive, was a fisher, and his mother, now in her early [Decade], a homemaker.
34.3.The applicant and his siblings were brought up in the Catholic faith, baptised as infants, and, from a young age, attended mass twice daily and summer bible classes in the registered [Parish 1], [Town], in the Vinh diocese. His father was a member of [Group 1] and his mother was a member of [Group 2]; these groups shared faith and prayer, and provided support to people in need. There were more than 2000 parishioners. The applicant does not recall the parish encountering any difficulties with the Vietnamese authorities while he was there.
34.4.In [Year], the applicant’s brother, somewhat older, born in [Year], was ordained as a Catholic priest and appointed to run the registered [Parish 2], also with more than 2000 parishioners, in [Location 2], Hung Nguyen district, about 25 kilometres from [Town], also in the Vinh diocese. The applicant left school at the end of year [Number], and in [Year] moved with his brother to [Parish 2] where he helped looked after the five chapels in the parish doing odd jobs. There, the Catholic church and faith became his life for some years: he regularly attended mass in the parish and at other parishes on special occasions; took the sacraments of confirmation, holy communion, and confession; and joined the parish youth group. While in Vietnam, the applicant didn’t return to school, enter paid employment, or partner or marry.
34.5.Since the applicant left Vietnam, his brother has moved parishes several times, and is now the priest at [Parish 3]. One sister lives with his mother in the family home in [Town], and the other sister lives nearby with her family.
34.6.The applicant said he joined the youth group in [Parish 2] when he was aged [Age], then later said he was a member from [Year] to the time he left Vietnam. His particular subgroup had about 15 members. They studied the bible together and shared learnings. The group’s activities were mostly limited to within the parish, however on, he thinks, 3 July 2012, he and other members, altogether ten, attended a vigil around midday at a chapel in Con Cuong parish to pray for the parish because it had been oppressed by the Vietnamese authorities. On 1 July 2012, during a peak incident, police and army stopped people from congregating and conducting masses, and vandalised the chapel.
34.7.On 3 July, the applicant and his group joined many other groups at the chapel and prayed for about an hour. They did not experience any problems while they were there, however, when riding on motorcycles back to [Parish 2], they were stopped by police and directed to the police station where they spent several hours giving statements. The police took information about everyone in the group, questioned them about why they were praying at the chapel, told them not to go there again, slapping them and threatening them with arrest and incarceration.
34.8.About three to four weeks later, the applicant was attending a bible class meeting, chaired by his brother, in the church grounds with about 15 others. The police came and confiscated bibles, vandalised statues and threatened them. His brother objected to the police action, but they carried on regardless and threatened to take him to the police station.
34.9.The applicant recalls, after he left Vietnam, being told that when his brother was transferred from [Parish 2] to [Parish 4], some gangsters came and vandalised the church. He’d heard that the Vietnamese authorities were trying to block the expansion of the church, and take the land back.
34.10.At age [Age], the applicant joined [Group 3] through people he knew in the youth group. It is a pro-life group that is connected to the Catholic church in Vietnam and works across the country to encourage and counsel women not to have abortions and to collect the foetuses of aborted babies from hospitals and private clinics and give them proper burials. They visited women in their homes and held meetings in the classroom in [Parish 2]. The government’s family planning policies endorse abortion, so the activities of [Group 3] are considered anti-government. On one occasion, he thinks in 2012, the applicant was in Vinh City with other group members, on the way to hospitals and clinics, and they were intercepted by police and taken to the police station for questioning for two hours. He felt very scared and on edge after that.
34.11.The Tribunal asked the applicant about the English translation of the document titled, ‘Decision record: appointment to Execution Board of Parish Youth’ signed by his brother as Pastor at [Parish 2] and dated 10 August 2011 (‘the parish youth board appointment record’). The applicant said this was a mistranslation; it was a management board. There were 15 people on the board; each member had a subgroup to manage, his was younger people he taught the bible to. He was appointed from 2011 to 2014, and served on the board until he left Vietnam. Appointments are made based on regular attendance at and participation in youth group activities, learning from older members, and proving yourself worth of nomination. The Tribunal asked the applicant why he hadn’t referred to the document in his statutory declaration dated 13 January 2017. He said he was scared at the time and couldn’t remember everything. In the second SHEV application interview, the Department told the applicant he needed to provide evidence of his involvement in the youth group, so he contacted his brother who subsequently sent him the document. The applicant hadn’t seen the document before then.
34.12.The applicant’s brother hasn’t had any problems with Vietnamese authorities in his parishes since he was transferred from [Parish 2]. However by practising religion, you’re always monitored and controlled. The applicant’s mother and sisters haven’t had any problems with Vietnamese authorities at the church they still attend in [Town].
34.13.The applicant considers that he was political activist or anti-government campaigner in Vietnam because of his membership of the groups he has mentioned, especially the anti-abortion activities of [Group 3].
34.14.The applicant increasingly felt insecure and scared in Vietnam as a result of his encounters with police. He felt he was controlled by the government, he had no rights, no freedom of religion, and no future in Vietnam. His brother told him to leave Vietnam, and helped him financially. His parents were supportive. One day, his older cousin, who lived in the same village, told him to catch a bus to Kien Giang province and he would pick him up and take him to a boat. He got very seasick on the boat trip; his memory is a blank. Apart from his cousin, he didn’t know anyone on the boat. His passport and identity papers were washed overboard. He didn’t know the boat was going to Australia. He was seeking a free life without fear. He thinks he was around age [Age] when he arrived.
34.15.When the applicant was in detention in Australia, he asked his mother to get replacement identity documents for him. She tried, however was told by the Vietnamese authorities that because he had fled the country, they wouldn’t issue the documents.
34.16.After his release from detention, the applicant settled in Brisbane. In due course, he obtained a work visa and got a job at a [Workplace] in [Suburb] where he still works. He also joined the local Vietnamese Community Church. When he wasn’t working, he attended nightly mass regularly and sang in the choir. Now, he attends mostly on weekends, and whenever there is a fete or special fundraising event, he helps out.
34.17.The applicant hasn’t been involved in any activities in Australia that would be considered against the Vietnamese government. He has posted on [Social media] interesting stories about oppression of religion in Vietnam, but not much. Asked by the Tribunal whether had copies of his [Social media] posts, the applicant said he would look.
34.18.The applicant talks to his mother and siblings occasionally by phone. His mother told him that after he left, the police came to the house several times looking for him, but they haven’t come for a while.
34.19.The Tribunal read from the representative’s submission dated 2 February 2023, in particular, the below list of reasons the applicant fears harm if he returns to Vietnam. The Tribunal sought clarification from the representative regarding the reference to [Parish 4]; the representative advised it was incorrect, and should instead read [Parish 2].
34.19.1.His Catholic faith.
34.19.2.His link to his brother who is a Catholic priest.
34.19.3.His membership with his hometown’s local parish, [Parish 4].
34.19.4.His activities with [Parish 4] as a youth group leader up until the time before his escape.
34.19.5.His involvement with [Parish 4] in the fight between Catholic members of Con Cuong and all parishioners of Vinh Diocese against the Government.
34.19.6.He came in conflict and was suppressed whilst practising his faith in Vietnam
34.19.7.His continued opposition to the Government’s suppression of the Catholic churches
34.20.The applicant confirmed the above fears, and also said that he feared being arrested, incarcerated and tortured.
34.21.If the applicant returns to Vietnam, he would live with his brother, and continue to practise his faith and participate in the groups he has mentioned. Vietnam is a one party communist regime; he’ll be monitored wherever he goes in Vietnam, and anyone perceived to be against the government will not be protected.
34.22.The Tribunal asked the applicant about the English translation of the document titled, ‘Letter of Guarantee’ signed by the applicant’s brother and dated 25 May 2020 (‘the brother’s letter’). The applicant said it was a mistranslation; it should say, letter of sponsorship. Again, the Department told him he needed more documents to support his claims, so he contacted his brother who subsequently sent him the document. When asked by Tribunal, the applicant couldn’t explain why the letter didn’t refer to him as the brother or the difficulties the priest brother had encountered with Vietnamese authorities.
34.23.The Tribunal asked the applicant about the statement from the former bishops of the Vinh diocese addressed to the Department of Immigration in Western Australia and dated 1 October 2013. The applicant doesn’t believe the statement was ever in his possession. He was in detention in Perth at the time, and when a delegation of former bishops visited the detention centre, which would explain why he is on the list of detainees. He thinks the statement could have been sent direct to the Department.
34.24.The Tribunal put the following country information to the applicant and invited him to comment:
34.24.1.The 2022 DFAT report says that Catholics are generally able to practise freely at registered churches, particularly in areas with larger Catholic populations, noting that Nghe An and Ha Tinh provinces have large Catholic populations.
34.24.2.Religious groups must register with the government and those who do register are able to worship with limited or no govt interference.
34.24.3.Many incidents of the authorities refusing registration, questioning or disrupting activities of religious groups relate to those groups that are politically active in local land or environmental disputes.
34.24.4.Catholics who are perceived to challenge the authority or interests of the Communist party and its policies, particularly through political activism, face a moderate risk of official discrimination from authorities or their proxies, which may include arrest or violence.
34.24.5.DFAT understands the authorities occasionally question returnees from Australia on their arrival in Vietnam. The interview process generally takes between one to two hours and focuses on obtaining information about the facilitation of any illegal movement on their part. DFAT is not aware of any cases in which returnees from Australia have been held overnight for this purpose.
34.24.6.Being a failed asylum seeker is not generally stigmatised.
34.25.In response to the above, the applicant said that if the Vietnamese authorities do something to you, nobody ever knows what happens to you, so the report can’t be reliable.
Post-hearing submissions

The Tribunal consented to receiving submissions from the representative no later than seven days after the hearing, and subsequently consented to a seven day extension.
On 17 February 2023, the representative emailed to the Tribunal further submissions and confirmation that the applicant relies on the following documents in his applications for review:
36.1.Applicant’s supporting statutory declaration dated 13 January 2017;
36.2.Letter dated 1 October 2013 from former Catholic bishops in Vietnam to the Department;
36.3.English translation of ‘Decision regarding the appointment of: execution Board of the Parish Youth’ signed by [Pastor A] on 10/8/2011;
36.4.English translation of ‘Letter of Guarantee’ signed by [Pastor A] on 25/05/2020;
36.5.Letter dated 28 October 2021 from [Rev. B], Chaplain of the [Organisation];
together with the following additional documents:
36.6.English translation of letter signed by [Pastor A] on 05/02/2023;
36.7.Comments by [Fr C], [Church role], Archdiocese of Brisbane regarding the [Organisation].
36.8.Catholic Leader online article dated 8 September 2021.
On 20 February 2023, the representative emailed the Tribunal further submissions.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s oral and written evidence taking into account the circumstances of his passage to Australia and his age and lack of English skills at the time, his subsequent detention, and the significant time that has elapsed between his departure from Vietnam and the Tribunal hearing.
The Tribunal notes the Department did not accept the applicant’s claim that his birth date is [Date], and instead, in the absence of any birth records, deemed it to be [Deemed date]. At hearing, the Tribunal notes the applicant maintained that his birth date is [Date], however his evidence about his age in particular years, including his current age, was hesitant and inconsistent.
The Tribunal further notes the applicant’s evidence at hearing that he left school at the end of year [Number], went to live with his brother in [Parish 2] in [Year], and never returned to school. Tribunal research indicates that year one of schooling in Vietnam commences at age 6, and the school year commences in mid to late August and finishes in May. On this basis, the applicant would have turned [Age] in [Year], making the year of his birth, [Year]. However, the applicant’s statutory declaration dated 13 January 2017 stated that he attended primary school in [Town] from [Year] to [Year]. On that basis, he would have turned [Age] in [Year], making the year of his birth, [Year].
The Tribunal considers it is likely the applicant misrepresented the year of his birth to seek an advantage as a minor on his arrival in Australia, and in doing so he has diminished the credibility of his other evidence about the timing of, and his age at the time of claimed occurrences and incidents.
The Tribunal considers it is unlikely the applicant asked his mother to request the Vietnamese authorities to issue replacement identity documents for him as he would not have wanted any documentary proof that he had misrepresented the year of his birth. Therefore the Tribunal does not accept the Vietnamese authorities refused to issue replacement identity documents for the applicant.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant lived with his parents and siblings in [Town] for a time before leaving school and going to live with his brother at [Parish 2].
The Tribunal considers the applicant’s brother took on a parent-like role with the applicant when he came to live with him at [Parish 2].
The Tribunal accepts the applicant was a practising Catholic in Vietnam.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s brother was a Catholic priest at [Parish 2] while the applicant was in Vietnam, and remains a Catholic priest serving at a parish in the Vinh diocese.
The Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence at hearing that he joined the [Parish 2] youth group at age [Age], which he subsequently corrected by saying that he was a member of the youth group from [Year] until he left Vietnam. Given the applicant’s inconsistent evidence about his age in particular years, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims regarding the age or year he joined the parish youth group.
The Tribunal notes the parish youth board appointment record and the applicant’s evidence that he had never seen the record when he was in Vietnam. The Tribunal considers it is likely the applicant’s brother retrospectively created the record to assist the applicant in providing proof of his involvement in the youth group and to give the impression that he held a position of profile and responsibility.
The Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence that, through the parish youth group, he joined [Group 3] at age [Age], and on one occasion in Vinh City, maybe in 2012, he was with others on the way to hospitals and clinics to collect aborted foetuses for burial when they were intercepted and taken to the police station for questioning. Given the applicant’s inconsistent evidence about his age, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims regarding the age he joined [Group 3]. The Tribunal considers the applicant’s evidence about the claimed incident limited, non-specific, and lacking credibility. Further, the Tribunal considers it is unlikely that the applicant, who was then not an adult, would have been involved in the practice of collecting and burying aborted foetuses.
The Tribunal notes and accepts the representative’s submissions dated 20 February 2023 in relation to the brother’s letters dated 25/05/2020 and 05/02/2023 that:
In relation to the support letters from [the applicant]’s brother, parish priest [Mr A], I note that [Ms. D] who has translated the letter dated 5 February 2023 is a NAATI Level Qualified Vietnamese interpreter and translator and as such she was able to pick up that the writer (parish priest [Mr A]) was referring to [the applicant] as his brother, whereas the translator for the letter dated 25 May 2020 was not a qualified NAATI translator, thus she did not pick up this context of the letter and has referred to the Vietnamese word “em” in [Mr A]’s letter as “Mr” whereas “em” in Vietnamese is “brother”.
Additionally, the letter dated 25 May 2020 was not translated by me or anyone from the firm, the translator for the letter dated 25 May 2020 is a Vietnamese citizen and did not want to identify as the translator for the document thus she did not stamp the document as being translated by her.
The Tribunal notes the respective references in the brother’s letters dated 25/05/2020 and 05/02/2023 to the applicant being “a member of Life Protection and being abused by Nghe An authorities” and “[the applicant] was harassed by the Nghe An province authority, taken to the police station to be questioned and threatened when he went to the hospital with the Pro-Life group to collect and burry [sic] foetuses”. The Tribunal considers the brother’s earlier evidence limited, non-specific and lacking credibility and, if the later evidence were true, it is likely the brother would have considered it sufficiently significant and relevant to the applicant’s claims to include in his earlier letter.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant was involved in the claimed police encounter in the course of collecting aborted foetuses for burial.
The Tribunal considers it likely however the applicant participated in a range of faith-related activities at [Parish 2] under the supervision and direction of his brother as the parish priest and in his parent-like role to the applicant, including helping with odd jobs, attending church and bible class, being involved in a parish youth group and parish community outreach as part of the Life Protection group.
The Tribunal’s research substantiates the applicant’s claim, supported by his brother’s letters, that an incident occurred between the Vietnamese authorities and parishioners at the Con Cuong chapel on 1 July 2012. In particular, the Tribunal notes the following reports:
54.1.Asia News reported online on 3 July 2012 that on the evening of 1July 2012, Father Nguyen Dinh Thuc met with faithful in a chapel of Con Cuong to celebrate mass. A group of thugs linked to the Vietnam Patriotic Front, instigated by local authorities, who pay these groups to attack Catholic communities, struck with force and brutality, injuring dozens of people. In the recent weeks, Con Cuong district officials patrolled the streets issuing warnings against lay Catholic and clergy guilty of illegally celebrating the Mass. Police and security agents threatened Christians and forced the faithful to promise not to participate in functions or ceremonies in the future. Parishioners protested outside the district authority’s offices demanding an end to violations and respect for religious freedom.
54.2.UCAnews (Union of Catholic Asian News) reported online on 3 July 2012 that: “A priest from Nghe An province has said that security officials barred access to a local chapel on Sunday and beat parishioners attempting to attend Mass. Father John Baptist Nguyen Dinh Thuc said some 500 officials, most of them not in uniform, converged on the Con Cuong chapel in Yen Khe village and tried to stop him from saying Mass. “When I arrived there at 2:30 p.m., officials prevented me from entering the chapel and hit me,” he said, adding that about 20 parishioners who tried to protect him were also badly beaten. “One woman had her head seriously injured and is still receiving medical treatment at a hospital in Hanoi,” Fr Thuc said. He added that two nuns from the Lovers of the Holy Cross were dragged from the chapel and beaten. Hundreds of local Catholics and those from neighboring areas intervened to rescue the victims and drive off their attackers, the priest said. At 4 p.m. he returned to the chapel and held Mass while an estimated 2,000 local villagers stood guard and security officials watched from a distance. “I will continue to visit [the chapel] and conduct pastoral activities for local people next weekend for the sake of local Catholics,” said Fr Thuc. The priest, based in Dong Tram some 30 kilometers away, began serving six months ago at the chapel, which was built in 2010 and serves 300 local parishioners. Church sources have said that in recent weeks authorities have asked local Catholics not to attend chapel services. The chapel has been the target of previous attacks by authorities, who made threats against parishioners and attempted to cut electricity lines, the sources said. In November, a home-made bomb damaged the chapel’s roof, windows and flooring.”
The Tribunal notes the brother’s letters dated 25/05/2020 and 05/02/2023 refer to the incident at the Con Cuong chapel on 1 July 2012.
The Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence at hearing that he attended a vigil with members of his youth group at the Con Cuong chapel around midday on 3 July 2012 to pray for the parish in the wake of the 1 July incident, and on the way home they were stopped by police and directed to the police station where they spent several hours being questioned, told not to return to the chapel, slapped, and threatened with arrest and incarceration.
The Tribunal notes the respective excerpts from the brother’s letters dated 25/05/2020 and 05/02/2023:
…I created a plan for the Parish Youth, in which [the applicant] became the Executive, in the evening of Sunday 08/07/2012 (July 8th), hosted a Light a Candle ceremony and on 09/07/2012 (July 9th) the Youth were on the way back to Con Cuong to express the Solidarity Spirit with the Laities in Con Cuong Chapel. On the same day, they were assaulted by the authorities, and after that continued being molested, detained, mentally harassed in order to frustrate and create fear in the life of [the applicant]…
and:
…I arranged for the Youth Committee which was run by my brother to organise a candlelight vigil of prayer on Sunday 08/07/2012 and to go to Con Luong on 09/07/2012 to show support to the parishioners on Con Cuong. On the way back, they were stopped by the Communist government. They were assaulted and brought to the police station to be questioned and terrorised due to religious belief. This caused a lot of confusion and unsettlement in these young people lives including my brother.
The Tribunal accepts it is reasonable after a period of many years that the applicant is mistaken about the date he claims he attended the Con Cuong chapel, however the Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence makes no reference to the first occasion being a candlelight vigil in the parish; rather, he says he and the youth group only attended a vigil at the Con Cuong chapel.
The Tribunal considers the applicant’s and the brother’s evidence about the youth group’s attendance at the Con Cuong chapel some number of days after the 1 July incident limited, non-specific and lacking credibility. For example, the applicant or the brother provides no evidence of what the youth group witnessed, participated in, or experienced at the chapel, other than engaging in prayer for an hour.
The Tribunal considers the applicant’s and the brother’s evidence about the youth group’s encounter with police somewhere between the Con Cuong chapel and [Parish 2] some number of days after the 1 July incident limited, non-specific and lacking credibility. For example, the applicant or the brother provides no evidence that the police were at the Con Cuong chapel and witnessed the youth group’s attendance and therefore no explanation as to how the police knew the youth group had attended the chapel.
The Tribunal considers it is likely the applicant, as part of the parish youth group, participated in some form of vigil or ceremony at [Parish 2] in recognition of the 1 July incident.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant, as part of the parish youth group, attended the Con Cuong chapel in the days following the incident or that they had the claimed encounter with police on their return to [Parish 2].
The Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence at hearing that three or four weeks after the claimed police encounter, the police came to the church at [Parish 2] while the applicant’s brother was chairing a bible class meeting, and confiscated bibles, vandalised statues and threatened them, and when the brother objected, the police threatened to take him to the police station.
The Tribunal notes the brother’s letter dated 25/05/2020 makes no reference to the [Parish 2] police encounter, and yet the brother’s letter dated 02/05/2023 states that “Three or four weeks later, the police came into their religious class to harass, threaten the young people, taking away their religious books and bibles”.
The Tribunal considers the applicant’s and brother’s evidence regarding the [Parish 2] police encounter limited, non-specific and lacking credibility. The Tribunal further considers that if the [Parish 2] police encounter had occurred, including the threats by police to take the brother to the police station, it is likely the brother would have considered it sufficiently significant and relevant to the applicant’s claims to include in his earlier letter.
The Tribunal does not accept the [Parish 2] police encounter occurred.
The Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence at hearing that he recalls being told that when his brother transferred from [Parish 2] to [Parish 4], gangsters vandalised the [Parish 2] church, and that the Vietnamese authorities were trying to block the expansion of the church and take the land back. However, neither of the brother’s letters makes reference to this incident. The Tribunal considers that if the gangster incident had occurred, it is likely the brother would have considered it sufficiently significant and relevant to the applicant’s claims to include in his letters.
The Tribunal does not accept the gangster incident occurred.
The Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence at hearing that after he left Vietnam the police came to his mother’s house in [Town] several times looking for him, however he did not say why the police were looking for him.
The Tribunal considers that if police had been looking for the applicant, for any reason, it is likely they would have visited his brother given that the applicant had been living with his brother for some years before leaving Vietnam. The Tribunal notes there is no evidence from the applicant or his brother that the police visited the brother.
The Tribunal does not accept the police came looking for the applicant at his mother’s house after he left Vietnam.
The Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence at hearing that his brother has not experienced any problems with the Vietnamese authorities since he was transferred from [Parish 2] and occupied the position of priest in several other parishes in the Vinh diocese.
The Tribunal considers it is unlikely the applicant’s brother is or would be a person of adverse interest to the Vietnamese authorities because of his Catholic faith and faith-related activities.
The Tribunal notes the letter from former Catholic bishops in Vietnam to the Department dated 1 October 2013, and that a name identical to the applicant’s name appears on the attached list of detainees. The Tribunal considers that the letter makes generalised, ambit claims without reference to the applicant’s particular circumstances and claims, and therefore does not afford the letter any weight.
The Tribunal notes the letter dated 28 October 2021 from [Rev. B], Chaplain of the [Organisation] regarding the applicant. The Tribunal considers that the Reverend is not in a position of knowledge to verify the applicant’s activities in Vietnam and therefore does not afford the letter any weight. Further, the Tribunal does not consider the Comments by [Fr C], [Church role], Archdiocese of Brisbane regarding the [Organisation] to be relevant to the applicant’s claims and therefore does not afford them any weight.
The Tribunal notes the representative’s submission dated 17 February 2023 in relation to the Catholic Leader online article dated 8 September 2021 that: The content of the article is not relevant to my submissions. I am wishing to show the source of the photograph of the Vietnamese Catholic Community of Brisbane holding the flag of South Vietnam, the Republic of Vietnam’s flag, thus it can be inferred by the Vietnamese Government that members of the Vietnamese Catholic Community of Brisbane are members supporting the Republic of Vietnam, who would thus be opposing the current Government.
The Tribunal is obliged to treat the representative’s submission as a new claim, sur place. The Tribunal notes the applicant gave evidence at hearing that he hasn’t been involved in any activities in Australia that would be considered against the Vietnamese government. The Tribunal further notes the applicant has not provided to the Tribunal copies of the [social media] posts he claims to have made about oppression of religion in Vietnam.
The Tribunal does not consider the photograph in the Catholic Leader establishes any nexus with the applicant or his claims and does not consider it credible evidence that the applicant has participated in anti-Vietnamese government activities while in Australia.
The Tribunal considers it is likely that as a result of the Department of Home Affairs data breach, the Vietnamese authorities became aware that the applicant was, at the time of the data breach, in Australian immigration detention.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant was or is known by the Vietnamese authorities to have participated in faith-related or other activities that are considered anti-government.
If the applicant returns to Vietnam, the Tribunal considers it is likely he would live with his brother in a Catholic parish in the Vinh diocese and participate in similar faith-related activities to those he participated in when he last lived in Vietnam.

The Tribunal considers it is unlikely the applicant is or would be a person of adverse interest to the Vietnamese authorities because of his Catholic faith and faith-related activities.
Country information
The Tribunal notes the country information set out in Attachment B, and in particular the following, in light of the applicant’s claims and evidence and the Tribunal’s considerations:
83.1.DFAT assesses that Catholics who belong to registered churches and are not politically active face a low risk of official harassment. In-country sources told DFAT that, in general, Catholics are able to worship freely and receive sacraments such as the Eucharist, Reconciliation (confession) and Confirmation.
83.2.DFAT understands that authorities occasionally question returnees from Australia upon their arrival in Vietnam. The interview process generally takes between one to two hours and focuses on obtaining information about the facilitation of any illegal movement on their part. DFAT is not aware of any cases in which returnees from Australia have been held overnight for this purpose.
83.3.Returnees, including failed asylum seekers, typically face a range of difficulties upon their return. These include unemployment or underemployment, and challenges accessing social services, particularly in cases where household registration has ceased.
83.4.Being a failed asylum seeker is not generally stigmatised.
83.5.DFAT assesses that most people who have been subject to people smuggling are seen by the Government as victims, not criminals.
Taking the above country information into account, the Tribunal considers that:
84.1.Given the Tribunal considers it is unlikely the applicant or his brother is or would be a person of adverse interest to the Vietnamese authorities because of either of their Catholic faith and faith-related activities, the Tribunal considers the applicant would face a low risk of official harassment as a practising Catholic in Vietnam.
84.2.The applicant may be questioned for one to two hours by Vietnamese authorities on his return to Vietnam, however, on the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant has not been involved in facilitating any illegal movement and it is therefore unlikely he would be a person of adverse interest to the authorities.
84.3.The applicant may face some employment and social services access difficulties on his return to Vietnam, however, on his evidence, he would return to live with his brother and it is therefore likely he would receive his support, as he has previously, while he re-established himself in Vietnam.
84.4.It is unlikely the applicant would be stigmatised for being a failed asylum seeker.
Other considerations
In considering the claims and evidence, the Tribunal has also taken account of:
86.1.The Department of Home Affairs ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’.
86.2.The Tribunal’s Migration and Refugee Division Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility.
Application of law
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether he is entitled to complementary protection. Attachment A sets out the applicable law.
The Tribunal finds that:
87.1.The applicant is a non-citizen in Australia.
87.2.The applicant does not satisfy the requirements for protection under the refugee or on complementary protection criteria set out in the applicable law.
87.3.If the applicant is returned to Vietnam, there is no real chance that he would be persecuted, and accordingly the applicant does not have a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ as required by s 5H(1)(a) of the Act and as defined in s 5J(1) of the Act.
87.4.There do not exist substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Vietnam there is a real risk the applicant will suffer significant harm.
CONCLUSIONS
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that suggests that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act.
decision
The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicant protection visas in:
91.1.Case number 2004793 (SHEV application made on 27 January 2017); and
91.2.Case number 2203061 (SHEV application made on 9 June 2020).
Kate Chapple
Member

ATTACHMENT A
Summary of applicable law
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B).
Relevant extracts from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
ATTACHMENT B
Relevant Country Information
Australian Government Department of Home Affairs website
In February 2014, a routine report released on the department's website unintentionally enabled access to some personal information about people who were in immigration detention in Australia on 31 January 2014.
U.S. Department of State Religious Freedom Designations – Secretary of State Press Statement, December 2, 2022
Around the world, governments and non-state actors harass, threaten, jail, and even kill individuals on account of their beliefs. In some instances, they stifle individuals’ freedom of religion or belief to exploit opportunities for political gain. These actions sow division, undermine economic security, and threaten political stability and peace. The United States will not stand by in the face of these abuses.
Today, I am announcing designations against Burma, the People’s Republic of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, the DPRK, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan as Countries of Particular Concern under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom. I am also placing Algeria, the Central African Republic, Comoros, and Vietnam on the Special Watch List for engaging in or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom. Finally, I am designating al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Houthis, ISIS-Greater Sahara, ISIS-West Africa, Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin, the Taliban, and the Wagner Group based on its actions in the Central African Republic as Entities of Particular Concern.
Our announcement of these designations is in keeping with our values and interests to protect national security and to advance human rights around the globe. Countries that effectively safeguard this and other human rights are more peaceful, stable, prosperous and more reliable partners of the United States than those that do not.
We will continue to carefully monitor the status of freedom of religion or belief in every country around the world and advocate for those facing religious persecution or discrimination. We will also regularly engage countries about our concerns regarding limitations on freedom of religion or belief, regardless of whether those countries have been designated. We welcome the opportunity to meet with all governments to address laws and practices that do not meet international standards and commitments, and to outline concrete steps in a pathway to removal from these lists.
DFAT Country Information Report Vietnam 11 January 2022
Religion
3.13 Vietnam is officially an atheist state. Article 24 of the Constitution nevertheless guarantees a right to freedom of belief and religion. In practice, religious groups are required to register with the Government and the authorities place restrictions on the day-to-day activities of some believers. The 2020 US Department of State International Religious Freedom report estimates, based on census data, that 14 per cent of Vietnamese have some religious faith, with 6 per cent of the population Catholic and 5 per cent Buddhist. Protestants make up about 1 per cent of the population. Small religions and traditional religious-cultural practice (for example, ancestor veneration) are also practised.
3.14 The Law on Belief and Religion came into effect on 1 January 2018. It established a role for the state in protecting religious freedoms and established legal personhood for religious groups. It requires such groups to register with the Government, and religious activities, including routine worship, festivals or conferences, to be registered. Activities can be disallowed on national security or morality grounds. The following sections focus on the day-to-day experiences of religious groups since the law came into effect.
3.15 A key distinction is between registered and unregistered faith groups. After the Vietnam War and the establishment of the unified Socialist Republic, the state created official religious groups and, since then, further groups have become registered. Registered groups worship with limited or no Government interference; those that are not registered may be pressured by Government to join the registered group. Among unregistered groups a further distinction can be made between those groups that have some (perceived) political or foreign agenda and those that do not. Different people of different religions in different areas will also have different experiences, depending on local authorities. Those in cities are less likely to experience official interference.
3.16 The Government recognises 38 religious organisations linked to 16 religious traditions, including Buddhism, Islam and Catholicism. Protestantism is broadly recognised and some international Christian organisations such as Seventh-day Adventists and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) are specifically recognised. Distinct denominations and new sects of any religion must individually register.
3.17 The extent of difficulty that a religious group could expect to face from authorities (for example, refusal of registration, questioning or disruption of activities) can depend on where they are located. Many claims of Government interference are at the hands of local and provincial authorities rather than national authorities. Attitudes and policies can differ between authorities.
3.18 Many incidents relate to religious groups that are politically active in local land or environmental disputes. It can be difficult to distinguish between religious and political claims. The distinction is not necessarily apparent in the everyday experiences of religious adherents or the authorities, either or both of whom may see religious activity as inherently political.
3.19 There are several high-profile examples of religious figures who have advocated for religious freedom and been imprisoned. Such cases are fewer in recent years but those who have been arrested and imprisoned in the past might still be under surveillance by authorities or summoned for regular interrogation. DFAT understands this is generally limited to questioning and surveillance and not violence.
3.20 Pew Research conducted a study in 2016 of global restrictions on religion that included analysis of ‘social hostility’ against people of different religions. That report placed Vietnam as one of the countries with the lowest levels of social hostility, along with other East Asian countries. Several in-country sources told DFAT that religious intolerance between people of different faiths is not an everyday problem in Vietnam.
3.21 DFAT assesses that adherents of officially recognised religious groups are generally able to practise their faith with minimal interference from national authorities, but the situation differs from place to place. Those in large cities are particularly free to practise. Adherents associated with unregistered religious groups generally face more restrictions, which vary depending on region, ethnicity, and any perceived or actual involvement in religious freedom advocacy or political activism.
Catholics
3.22 While Catholics reside in most districts, provinces and cities, the highest concentration is in central Vietnam (Nghe An, Ha Tinh and Quang Binh Provinces). In-country sources report that Catholics are generally able to practise freely at registered churches, particularly in areas with larger Catholic populations.
3.23 The Catholic Church is, by definition, united and can deal with the Government at a national level across Vietnam. Provincial authorities might also have relationships at the diocesan level; sometimes local relationships are better than the national level relationship. In general, relationships between the Government and the Church are cordial. Individual parishes need to be registered.
3.24 Most Catholics worship in churches as part of parishes. Some communities, particularly outside of cities, worship in homes of believers. These activities may be limited by authorities in some cases, but this differs from place to place. In general, Catholics in cities worship freely in churches.
3.25 Some Catholic communities are growing in size with evangelism or welfare efforts. This can occur especially where the local Catholic communities have good relationships with the Government. Some sources report that Catholic missionaries and officials have had difficulty reaching more remote parts of the country in recent years, which might be related to COVID-19 restrictions. Written materials, such as newsletters, websites and social media materials exist, but their maintenance, distribution and promotion do not appear to be a priority for Catholic leaders.
3.26 There have been Catholic political movements that attract negative attention from authorities. The distinction between faith and politics can be difficult to draw. Examples include where Catholics are involved in political, human rights or environmental movements. For example, priests that are involved in those movements may be restricted from public ministry or given a far-away parish assignment. Participation in non-religious activities differs from diocese to diocese and parish to parish.
3.27 The ‘Red Flag Association’, a militant pro-Government movement allegedly under the direction of local governments, was reported to have disbanded in 2018. Red Flag Association activity included protests outside Catholic churches. In-country sources told DFAT that these protests have not occurred in the last two years and that such activity is now more likely to be online.
3.28 Land disputes have been reported, including the seizure of Catholic land and buildings. A particularly prominent example occurred in 2019 when a number of homes and a Catholic church were demolished and the land sold. Appropriated land might be sold to the private sector for development. Conversely, much of the land that was seized from the Church in the aftermath of the Vietnam War has been returned over decades. That process continues, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, reportedly in return for cooperation of the Church with authorities during the pandemic.
3.29 Church officials do not have official relationships with the Catholic Church overseas (except perhaps the Vatican), but in-country sources told DFAT that individual Catholics or communities have relationships with the diaspora overseas, including in Australia, and these relationships are generally unhindered.
3.30 In-country sources told DFAT Catholics generally do not experience societal discrimination. Such discrimination cannot be ruled out, but DFAT understands from in-country sources that there is not a pattern of such discrimination.
3.31 DFAT assesses that Catholics who belong to registered churches and are not politically active face a low risk of official harassment. In-country sources told DFAT that, in general, Catholics are able to worship freely and receive sacraments such as the Eucharist, Reconciliation (confession) and Confirmation. Some Catholics in remote areas have trouble accessing a priest who may not be able to travel to remote areas, whether because authorities will not allow it or because of the remoteness. Catholics who are perceived to challenge the authority or interests of the CPV and its policies, particularly through political activism, face a moderate risk of official discrimination from authorities or their proxies, which may include arrest or violence.
Political opinion (actual or imputed)
3.49 Vietnam is a one-party state and opposition parties are effectively illegal. Threats to CPV legitimacy are seen as threats to the state and are not tolerated…
3.52 The right to assembly is constitutionally protected but, in practice, that right is subject to national security provisions of the Penal Code that prohibit ‘establishing or joining an organisation that [is] against the People’s Government’ (article 109), ‘making, storing or spreading information … opposing the State’ (article 117) and ‘abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the state’ (article 331). These laws effectively outlaw protests that the Government finds sensitive. Official approval is required to protest, which is routinely denied for sensitive topics. Protests that are allowed are subject to close police monitoring.
3.57 It is difficult to make an overall assessment of risks to activists as there are no clear patterns to determine who will be arrested or when. Those who publicly criticise the Government face a moderate risk of official discrimination regardless of what they are protesting. Those who organise protests are more likely to face discrimination, but the possibility of a low-level activist being arrested cannot be discounted.
3.64 It is difficult to give an overall assessment of the risk to online activists, given that Government crackdowns have been observed in relation to a wide range of issues at different times and against different kinds of people. DFAT assesses that online activists face a moderate risk of official discrimination. A repeated pattern of online activity would generally, but not always, attract the attention of authorities.
Exit and entry procedures
5.25 Article 23 of the Constitution allows citizens to ‘freely travel abroad and return home from abroad in accordance with the provisions of the law’. In practice, the Government imposes limits on entry and exit for political activists and Government critics. This is achieved by refusing to issue passports or laying criminal charges to prevent travel, and is sometimes used against the families of persons of interest.
Conditions for returnees
5.29 Articles 120 and 121 of the Penal Code prohibit ‘organising, coercing [or] instigating illegal emigration for the purpose of opposing the People’s Government’ and describes penalties of between three and 20 years’ prison for both organiser and individual émigrés. DFAT is not aware of any cases where these provisions have been used against failed asylum seekers returned from Australia.
5.30 In-country sources report that all individuals involved in people smuggling operations, whether as organisers or travellers, are typically held by authorities for questioning to determine their involvement in operations. Sources have described cases where people have been detained for multiple days or recalled for further questioning. DFAT understands that would-be migrants who have employed the services of people smugglers at worst only face an administrative fine, including in cases of multiple illegal departures.
5.31 DFAT understands that authorities occasionally question returnees from Australia upon their arrival in Vietnam. The interview process generally takes between one to two hours and focuses on obtaining information about the facilitation of any illegal movement on their part. DFAT is not aware of any cases in which returnees from Australia have been held overnight for this purpose.
5.32 Returnees, including failed asylum seekers, labour migrants and trafficking victims, typically face a range of difficulties upon return. These include unemployment or underemployment, and challenges accessing social services, particularly in cases where household registration has ceased. In addition, trafficking victims face social stigma and discrimination, and may experience difficulty in accessing appropriate trauma counselling services outside of large cities. Returnees may be offered assistance by NGOs, but this may be more available to victims of trafficking rather than failed asylum applicants.
5.34 Being a failed asylum seeker is not generally stigmatised. Migration, particularly internal migration, has been a feature of Vietnamese lives for decades, is very common and is even encouraged by the Government. DFAT is not aware of cases of returnees being denied citizenship.
5.35 DFAT assesses that most people who have been subject to people smuggling are seen by the Government as victims, not criminals. Those who use their time overseas to publicly oppose the Government, or who are wanted for similar actions domestically, would be treated in accordance with the procedures set out in Political Opinion (Actual or imputed) and the laws related to illegal emigration might apply to those people. This does not apply to the majority of returning Vietnamese, including those who have departed to seek asylum. This assessment applies to those who have sought asylum in Australia and not to ethnic minorities who have fled by land to neighbouring countries who may be returned from those countries.
Department of Home Affairs Common Claims Vietnam 25 October 2022
(references at the end of Attachment B)
Religion
Religion Authorities permit religious activity while retaining control over religious organisations through registration and oversight. Diplomatic sources informed a UK Home Office Fact Finding Mission to Vietnam that there is no ideological campaign against religion in Vietnam.¹Rather, the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) is suspicious of any organised group – including religious ones – that may challenge its authority, and therefore seeks to control them.² Credible sources indicate that religious organisations who comply with mandated registration requirements (see paragraph below) generally operate with little state interference as do some religious organisations who do not comply with registration requirements.³ Laws even exist which provide a separate process for unregistered, unrecognized religious groups to receive permission for specific religious activities.⁴ Interference with, or suppression of, religious organisations or individuals tends to occur where authorities perceive they challenge the CPV’s authority, interests or policies, particularly through political activism.⁵ For example, official mistreatment of ethnic minority religious groups – typically in highland areas – is generally unconnected with the religious aspects of the group or individuals and more due to involvement in political issues (land or environment protests) or advocacy of democracy.⁶
Religious practice is regulated by law and official oversight, and in some instances restricted. On 1 January 2018, a new Law on Belief and Religion (LBR), accompanied by Decree No162/2017/ND-CP Guidelines for Implementation of the Law on Religion and Folk Belief,⁷ came into effect.⁸ The LBR requires religious groups to register with authorities and obtain official approval for their activities.⁹ Not all groups have chosen to or been able to register their organisations; some groups were simply denied registration or had their request to register ignored by authorities.¹⁰ While some religious groups noted cooperation from authorities in the registration process – including in the northern provinces – others noted local authorities hindered their efforts to register.¹¹ On the whole, central authorities have actively sought to train local officials to correctly implement the LBR and have established an online portal to help religious organisations expedite the registration process.¹² The 2018 Law on Belief and Religion has had mixed consequences for registered and unregistered religious groups. For some already registered groups the LBR has provided clarity about which activities are permitted with a number able to obtain permission for activities previously disallowed.¹³ These groups tend to be larger and well-established, with good relations with authorities.¹⁴ The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) also reported in 2019 that some interlocutors indicated to them that authorities had generally become more tolerant of religion, with state officials prominently praising the role of religious organizations in promoting social welfare.¹⁵ The LBR also permits religious organizations to participate in education, vocational training, healthcare and social services, previously curtailed.¹⁶
This involvement has been encouraged by authorities and was evident in religious group member involvement in COVID-19 community support including funding contributions and field hospital volunteer work.¹⁷ However, religious groups which choose not to register with the authorities for reasons of conscience, or have had their application for registration rejected or ignored according to some reports experience increased repression under the new law.¹⁸ In November 2021, an implementing decree for the 2018 LBR was considered by the GCRA (General Committee for Religious Affairs) and was said to have shortcomings, although these were not specified.¹⁹ Two draft decrees were circulated for comment in June 2022 and reportedly raised concerns amongst religious leaders.²⁰
The government recognises a wide range of religious groups. While reports vary, the government recognises between 38 and 43 religious organisations and one dharma practice, which are affiliated with 15 distinct religious traditions.²¹ These comprise Buddhism, Islam, Baha’i, Catholicism, Protestantism, Hoa Hao Buddhism, Cao Dai, Buu Son Ky Huong, Tinh Do Cu Si Phat Hoi, Tu An Hieu Nghia, Phat Duong Nam Tong Minh Su Dao, Minh Ly Dao Tam Tong Mieu, Cham Brahmanism Hieu Nghia Ta Lon Buddhism and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.²² The government only recognizes the state-run Buddhist Sangha of Vietnam.²³ Catholic groups – along with Protestants, Muslims, Baha’i and Buddhist groups – are allowed to provide religious education to adherents in their own facilities, and religious leaders noted increased enrolment in these education programs in recent years.²⁴
Specific to religion among ethnic minority groups, Vietnamese officials advised the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in January 2021 that the Central Highlands comprises 500,000 Protestant followers and the Northern mountainous region some 250,000 Protestant believers (mainly from the Hmong ethnic group), across some 1,600 groups, more than 900 of which have been registered by local authorities.²⁵ The Ministry of Public Security estimated there were approximately 70 Protestant groups with nearly 200,000 members operating outside of the legal framework mandated by the LBR.²⁶
The degree to which Vietnamese people can freely practice religion varies widely; urban groups tend to enjoy better treatment than rural ones. Implementation of the LBR varies significantly across provinces,²⁷ and members of the same group may be treated differently in various locations depending on relationships with local authorities.²⁸ Credible sources note that conditions for religious groups tend to be better in urban centres than rural settings.²⁹ According to the USDOS, religious leaders in urban areas and among ethnic-majority Kinh adherents reported the ability to practice without significant restrictions, so long as they acted transparently and did not impede official oversight. This remained true for both officially registered and unregistered religious groups.³⁰ Unregistered and/or ethnic minority religious groups in remote and rural areas by contrast are on occasion subject to ongoing harassment, disruption of services, arbitrary detention and other violations. ³¹ Unlike their unregistered neighbours, recognised religious denominations in highlands areas have reported rapid growth and generally fewer problems with officials.³² Some reports have noted instances of progress in the relationship between authorities and ethno-religious minorities. In August 2020, for example, local authorities in Lam Dong Province announced over USD3 million in funding to help displaced Hmong Christian households to permanently resettle, including through the provision of a medical clinic and community centre.³³
Repression, violence and harassment of religious activities outside state-approved religious groups occurs. The Vietnamese government is suspicious of any organised group that may challenge its authority, and continues to closely monitor and disrupt the activities of unrecognised branches of various religious groups.³⁴ Religious groups report that hindrance or suppression of religious groups by local or provincial authorities,³⁵ can sometimes occur through the mobilization of locals, thugs or cadres by the government.³⁶ Violations have included as well as harassment, disruption of services, arbitrary detention,³⁷ intimidation and intrusive monitoring, arrest, imprisonment and torture,³⁸ physical assault, banishment, detention, imprisonment, and forced renunciation of faith,³⁹. DFAT most recently assesses that those ‘associated with unregistered religious groups generally face more restrictions, which vary depending on region, ethnicity, and any perceived or actual involvement in religious freedom advocacy or political activism.’⁴⁰
Religious freedom has improved in recent years. The USDOS has reported that religious leaders countrywide had noted improving conditions compared with prior years, highlighting better relations between unregistered religious groups and local authorities with a reduction in aggressive forms of harassment.⁴¹ Members of recognized groups or those with certificates of registration said they were generally more able to practice their beliefs with less government interference.⁴² House churches have also been able to operate drug rehabilitation services and some Protestant churches co-operated to provide food and essentials to people during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴³
Religious adherence per se does not appear to compromise economic opportunities. Most representatives of religious groups continue to report anecdotally that adherence to a registered religious group generally did not seriously disadvantage individuals in nongovernmental, civil, economic, and secular life, but that adherence to an unregistered group was more disadvantageous.⁴⁴ Religious leaders said that actual religious belief was not a cause of official discrimination, but the implication of being affiliated with any type of extra-legal group could attract additional scrutiny from authorities.⁴⁵ Practitioners of various registered religious groups hold local and provincial government positions and in the National Assembly.⁴⁶
Land continues to be a flashpoint for religious organisation and state relations. Provincial and local authorities exercise control over land belonging to individuals and religious organizations in the name of social and economic development projects.⁴⁷ Authorities do not hinder projects that require the revocation of land rights and demolition of properties of religious organizations or individuals.⁴⁸Authorities reportedly fail to intervene effectively in many land disputes that involve religious organizations or believers, and in most of these cases, the religious organizations or believers were unsuccessful in retaining land use rights.⁴⁹ Such actions resulted in land disputes involving both registered and unregistered religious organizations.⁵⁰
Treatment of failed asylum seekers
Most individuals who depart Vietnam illegally, for the purpose of seeking asylum, are unlikely to be subjected to relevant laws upon return. DFAT is unaware of any cases of relevant legal provisions being used against failed asylum seekers returned from Australia.³⁰⁰ According to DFAT’s 2019 country report for Vietnam, returns to Vietnam are usually done on the understanding that the individuals in question will not face charges as a result of having made an application for protection.³⁰¹ DFAT’s 2022 Vietnam country report suggests that authorities on occasion question returnees from Australia upon their arrival in Vietnam, with interviews generally taking between one to two hours and conducted to obtain information about the facilitation of any illegal movement on their part.³⁰² DFAT is unaware of any cases in which returnees from Australia have been held overnight for such purposes.³⁰³
In 2016, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Australian Department of Home Affairs and Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security which provides a formal framework for the return of Vietnamese nationals ‘with no legal right to enter or remain in Australia, including those intercepted at sea’.³⁰⁴ Individuals who arrived in Australia via people smuggling networks are also unlikely to face criminal sanctions upon return. The government of Vietnam distinguishes between victims and perpetrators of people smuggling and as such views individuals who paid money to organisers of people smuggling operations as victims of people smuggling, not criminally liable.³⁰⁵ All individuals involved in people smuggling operations however, whether as organisers or travellers, are typically held by authorities for questioning to determine their involvement in operations.³⁰⁶ Sources described to DFAT cases where people have been detained for multiple days or recalled for further questioning.³⁰⁷ DFAT understands that would-be migrants who have employed the services of people smugglers at worst only face an administrative fine, including in cases of multiple illegal departures.³⁰⁸ Activists who return to Vietnam may face ongoing monitoring from authorities. According to DFAT the Vietnamese Government imposes limits on entry and exit for political activists and Government critics through refusing to issue passports.³⁰⁹ The UK Home Office understands that activists who return to Vietnam after seeking asylum overseas may face monitoring, with high-level activists facing more monitoring than low-level activists.³¹⁰ People of particular interest to authorities may be required to have regular conversations or ‘catch ups’ with officials.³¹¹ In January 2019, a Radio Free Asia blogger, Truong Duy Nhat, went missing in Thailand amid fears he had been abducted by Vietnamese agents. He later resurfaced in a Hanoi prison and authorities laid official charges in September 2019.³¹² Two refugees detained in Thailand were visited by Vietnam Embassy staff in August 2022, who unsuccessfully attempted to persuade them to return home.³¹³ Freedom House indicates that activists living outside of Vietnam have had their Facebook accounts suspended for ‘violating the platform’s community standards’, and occasionally have been targets of systematic cyberattacks.³¹⁴
Relocating or leaving the country
Internal relocation is common, despite the requirement to register in one’s new location. The DFAT country information report states that while police maintain a close watch over relocation, with citizens staying even one night away from their homes required to register with local police, internal relocation is nonetheless common.³¹⁵ The USDOS states that the household registration system is used to monitor unlawful activity, but that ‘it is less intrusive than in the past’³¹⁶, and that individuals engaged in or suspected of engaging in unauthorized political activities may be monitored through the registration system more closely.³¹⁷ DFAT acknowledge that in practice police do not strictly enforce laws regarding residence to the extent that it would prevent internal relocation, particularly from rural to urban areas, and consider it ‘unlikely’ that authorities would refuse a person’s request to register in a new location.³¹⁸ DFAT considers that those attempting to relocate to the major cities may experience bureaucratic difficulties, but that relocation to such locales is not impossible.³¹⁹ NGO and academic sources informed a UKHO Fact-Finding Team that household registration is not a barrier to moving around the country and does not prevent free movement.³²⁰ Individuals with certain profiles may be prevented from leaving the country.³²¹
References – DHA Common Claims Vietnam 25 October 2022
Religion
1 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.25, 20190917095808
2 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.25, 20190917095808;
3 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 1, 20220603132903;'DFAT Country Information Report - VIETNAM - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, p 14, 20220111094403; 'Country Policy and Information Note - Vietnam: Hoa Hao Buddhism', UK Home Office, February 2020, pp.11, 14, 20200218104508
4 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, Sect II, p. 7, 20220603132903
5 'DFAT Country Information Report - VIETNAM - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, p 14, 20220111094403 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.25, 20190917095808
6 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 09 September 2019, p.26, 20190917095808
7 ‘Decree No162/2017/ND-CP Guidelines for Implementation of the Law on Religion and Folk Belief’, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, December 2017, 20200806155359
8 'Country Update: An Assessment of Vietnam's Law on Belief and Religion', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 21 November 2019, p.1, 20191122090923
9 ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practice for 2020 – Vietnam’, US Department of State, 30 March 2021, S2B, p.24, 20210331114522 (not in 2021 report)
10 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 12, 20220603132903
11 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 1, 20220603132903
12 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, pp. 13, 19, 20220603132903
13 'Freedom of religion or belief since the January 2018 Law on Belief and Religion', Christian Solidarity Worldwide, June 2022, p. 2, 20220901152329
14 Freedom of religion or belief since the January 2018 Law on Belief and Religion', Christian Solidarity Worldwide, June 2022, p. 2, 20220901152329
15 'Country Update: An Assessment of Vietnam's Law on Belief and Religion', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 21 November 2019, p.1, 20191122090923
16Report on Human Rights in Vietnam 2021-2022', Vietnam Human Rights Network, 24 June 2022, p. 47, 20220901160002
17 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 20, 20220603132903
18 Freedom of religion or belief since the January 2018 Law on Belief and Religion', Christian Solidarity Worldwide, June 2022, pp. 2, 4, 20220901152329;
19 'United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Annual Report 2022', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 25 April 2022, p.41, 20220426134255
20 'Draft decrees on religion provoke concern', Christian Solidarity Worldwide, 21 June 2022, 20220902162654
21 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 4, 20220603132903 states ‘38’ groups; 'Report on Human Rights in Vietnam 2019-2020', Vietnam Human Rights Network, 14 May 2020, p.52, 20200521115120 states ‘42’ groups; ‘Combined fifteenth to seventeenth reports submitted by Viet Nam under article 9 of the Convention, due in 2015* (CERD/C/VNM/15-17)’, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 13 January 2021, para.70, p.19, 20210215153650 lists 43 groups belonging to 16 religions.
22 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 5, 20220603132903
23 Report on Human Rights in Vietnam 2021-2022', Vietnam Human Rights Network, 24 June 2022, p. 53, 20220901160002
24 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 22, 20220603132903
25 'Combined fifteenth to seventeenth reports submitted by Viet Nam under article 9 of the Convention, due in 2015* (CERD/C/VNM/15-17)', Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 13 January 2021, para.73, pp.19-20, 20210215153650
26 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 12, 20220603132903
27 'Country Update: An Assessment of Vietnam's Law on Belief and Religion', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 21 November 2019, pp.1,3, 20191122090923
28 'Country Policy and Information Note - Vietnam: Hoa Hao Buddhism', UK Home Office, February 2020, pp.11, 14, 20200218104508; 'DFAT Country Information Report - VIETNAM - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, p. 14, 20220111094403
29 ‘Written statement* submitted by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status’, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, 17 June 2021 , para.3, p.2, 20220117114221; 'USCIRF 2020 Annual Report', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 28 April 2020, p.47, 20200429103634; Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.26, 20190917095808
30 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 15, 20220603132903
31 ‘Written statement* submitted by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status’, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, 17 June 2021 , para.3, p.2, 20220117114221; 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.3.15, p.14, 20220111094403
32 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 15, 20220603132903
33 ‘Hopes and fears for religious freedom in Vietnam’, The Hill 20, August 2020, 20200821153509
34 Report on Human Rights in Vietnam 2021-2022', Vietnam Human Rights Network, 24 June 2022, p. 53ff, 20220901160002; 'Human Rights Watch World Report 2022', Human Rights Watch (HRW), 13 January 2022, p. 747, 20220114100636; 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.25, 20190917095808
35 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 1, 20220603132903
36 ‘Vietnam: General Briefing’, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, March 2021, p.1, 20220117150216; ‘Thien An Abbey – 45 Years Under The Government’s Fist’, The Vietnamese, 6 October 2020, 20201008153405
37 ‘Written statement* submitted by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status’, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, 17 June 2021 , para.3, p.2, 20220117114221
38 ‘Vietnam: General Briefing’, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, March 2021, p.1, 20220117150216
39 'United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Annual Report 2022', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 25 April 2022, p.40, 20220426134255
40 'DFAT Country Information Report - VIETNAM - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, p. 14, 20220111094403
41 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 1, 20220603132903
42 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 1, 20220603132903
43 'DFAT Country Information Report - VIETNAM - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, p. 16, 20220111094403
44 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 21, 20220603132903
45 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 21, 20220603132903
46 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 21, 20220603132903
47 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 17, 20220603132903
48 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 17, 20220603132903
49 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 17, 20220603132903; 'Religious Freedom in the World Report 2021 Vietnam', Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), 20 April 2021, p. 4, 20220318120233
50 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 17, 20220603132903
Treatment of failed asylum seekers
300 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.29, p.33, 20220111094403
301 'DFAT Country Information Report Vietnam', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 13 December 2019, p.43, 20191213145121
302 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.31, p.33, 20220111094403
303 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.29, p.33, 20220111094403
304 'DFAT Country Information Report Vietnam', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 13 December 2019, p.43, 20191213145121
305 'DFAT Country Information Report Vietnam', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 13 December 2019, p. 44, 20191213145121
306 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.30, p.33, 20220111094403
307 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.30, p.33, 20220111094403
308 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.30, p.33, 20220111094403
309 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.25, p.32, 20220111094403
310 ‘Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019’, UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.31, 20190917095808
311 ‘Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019’, UK Home Office, 09 September 2019, p.31, 20190917095808
312 '10 Most Censored Countries', Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), New York, 10 September 2019, 20190910171006; ''Unholy alliance'? Southeast Asian authorities accused of trading exiled activists', Reuters, 21 June 2019, 20190624112000; 'RFA Blogger Formally Indicted in Vietnam for ‘Abuse of Power’', Radio Free Asia (RFA), 17 September 2019, 20190918084723
313 'Vietnamese refugees held in Thailand say they fear being forced home', Radio Free Asia (RFA), 12 August 2022, 20220815111023
314 'Freedom on the Net 2022 - Vietnam', Freedom House, 18 October 2022, B2, C8, 20221020141926
Relocating or leaving the country
315 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.18, p.31, 20220111094403
316 2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Vietnam', US Department of State, 12 April 2022, Section 1f, p. 17, 20220413115447
317 '2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Vietnam', US Department of State, 12 April 2022, Section 1f, p. 17, 20220413115447
318 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.19, p.31, 20220111094403
319 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, paras.5.21-5.22, pp.31-32, 20220111094403
320 ‘Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019’, UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, para.4.14, p.16, 20190917095808
321 'Vietnam rights lawyer barred from leaving country', Radio Free Asia (RFA), 28 September 2022, 20220929133259; 2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Vietnam', US Department of State, 12 April 2022, s 2d, p. 28, 20220413115447

[2023] AATA 1279

20 February 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Appeal