2009015 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal by a Vietnamese national against the decision of the Refugee Tribunal to affirm the refusal of his protection visa. The applicant claimed that he feared being insulted and laughed at upon his return to Vietnam due to his failure in his studies in Australia. The Tribunal had cancelled the hearing and made its decision on the papers, as requested by the applicant, who also sought a referral to the Minister for intervention under section 417 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal, he would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal applied the principles established in *MIEA v Guo* (1997) 191 CLR 559, noting that a mere claim of fear is insufficient; the applicant must satisfy the Tribunal that all statutory elements are met. The Tribunal found the applicant's claims to be brief and lacking in detail, and concluded that he had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for any Convention reason. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the alternative criterion under section 36(2)(aa) but found no basis to be satisfied that the applicant would suffer significant harm upon removal. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's request for ministerial intervention but decided not to refer the matter, noting that the applicant could still make a direct request to the Minister.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).