2010598 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a protection visa made by a Vietnamese national. The applicant claimed to fear harm in Vietnam due to a past street attack and a belief that he would be stopped at the airport upon return. The AAT 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 to believe that upon removal to Vietnam, the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. It applied the principles established in cases such as *MIEA v Guo & Anor*, *Nagalingam v MILGEA*, and *Prasad v MIEA*, which hold that the mere assertion of a fear does not establish its genuineness or that it is well-founded. The applicant bears the responsibility to provide sufficient detail to enable the decision-maker to establish the relevant facts. In this instance, the applicant's claims lacked essential detail regarding the alleged attack and the reasons for his fear of being stopped at the airport. Furthermore, the applicant failed to attend the hearing, preventing the Tribunal from clarifying his claims or posing further questions.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution for any of the reasons specified in the *Migration Act 1958*. The Tribunal also considered the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which requires substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. However, due to the lack of detailed evidence and the applicant's non-appearance, this criterion could not be satisfied. The Tribunal therefore affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa.