2009640 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Vietnamese national. The applicant claimed to have opposed the Vietnamese government and supported the Viet Tan Party, alleging he had been detained and threatened in Vietnam due to his activism. He further claimed he would face harm if returned to Vietnam due to his outspoken online support for the party and criticism of the government. The applicant's evidence in the hearing, however, contradicted his written claims, stating he left Vietnam to earn more money, had not experienced harm there, and simply disliked the government. He also admitted a friend had prepared his visa application and that he did not recall its contents.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or alternatively under section 36(2)(aa) as a person facing significant harm under complementary protection obligations. The court was required to assess the applicant's credibility and the consistency of his claims and evidence in light of the relevant provisions of the Act and associated guidelines.

The court found that the applicant's evidence was inconsistent and lacked credibility, particularly his assertion that he had not suffered harm in Vietnam, which directly contradicted his written claims. His admission that he left Vietnam for financial reasons and his inability to recall the details of his own application further undermined his case. Given these findings, the court determined that the applicant did not satisfy the definition of a refugee under section 5H of the Act, nor did he establish a real risk of significant harm upon return to Vietnam. The court noted that the applicant did not claim to be a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.

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