2009563 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an individual from Vietnam. The applicant claimed to fear persecution due to his opposition to the Communist regime and his support for the Viet-Tan Party, alleging that expressing such views on social media or through political activism could lead to imprisonment and mistreatment. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that his removal from Australia would result in a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims as set out in his protection visa application, which detailed his objections to the one-party system in Vietnam, alleged corruption, and the risks associated with expressing dissenting opinions, particularly through social media. The applicant also stated his strong support for the Viet-Tan Party, asserting that its members faced arrest in Vietnam. He claimed to have experienced questioning and mistreatment in the past for his views and believed he would be further harmed or mistreated if returned, with no possibility of protection from the authorities or relocation within the country.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the criteria for refugee status under section 5J(1) of the Act and the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal found that the applicant did not face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm for any of the prescribed reasons, nor did he have a well-founded fear of persecution. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations under the Refugee Convention. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Vietnam, applying the same "real risk" standard as for the refugee criterion. The decision under review was therefore affirmed.