2009400 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Vietnamese citizen who claimed to fear harm from a man named Mr. A. The applicant alleged that Mr. A had borrowed money from him, and after experiencing business difficulties, had become aggressive, physically assaulted him, and threatened his family. The applicant stated he did not report these incidents to the police as it was considered a private matter and Mr. A had threatened retaliation. He also claimed relocation within Vietnam was not feasible due to Mr. A's extensive network.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, specifically membership of a particular social group, and whether Australia had complementary protection obligations towards him. The court was required to consider the applicant's claims and evidence in light of relevant guidelines and country information.

The court found that the applicant had not established that he was a member of a particular social group as defined by the Convention. Furthermore, the court applied the principle that Australia does not have complementary protection obligations where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of their country of origin where they would not face a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.