2009411 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Vietnamese citizen. The applicant claimed to have been involved in protests and social media activity criticising the Formosa Plastics Group's toxic waste spill in Vietnam and advocating for compensation for affected fishermen. He alleged harassment by local authorities and a fear of imprisonment if he did not cease his activism. The applicant also contended that the Vietnamese government's response to the environmental disaster and its human rights record meant he could not live under that system. The decision under review was made by the Refugee Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution or would suffer significant harm if returned to Vietnam. This involved assessing whether his activism and the alleged government response established an imputed political opinion that would place him at risk, and whether the broader systemic issues in Vietnam constituted grounds for protection. The Tribunal was also required to consider the principles of complementary protection and the reasonableness of internal relocation within Vietnam.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's evidence regarding his participation in protests and social media posts, as well as the alleged harassment and threats from local authorities. It also took into account country information regarding Vietnam, including the impact of the Formosa toxic waste spill and the government's response. The Tribunal found that while the applicant had engaged in activism and expressed criticism, he had obtained a passport and departed Vietnam without difficulty. Crucially, the Tribunal applied the principle that Australia does not have complementary protection obligations where it would be reasonable for an applicant to relocate to an area of their home country where they would not face a real risk of significant harm. Based on the evidence and applicable guidelines, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2) of the Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.