2010720 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by a Vietnamese national. The applicant claimed to fear harm in Vietnam due to a street attack and the possibility of being stopped at the airport. The 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 to believe that removal to Vietnam would result in a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's failure to provide sufficient detail regarding the alleged street attack and the reasons for fearing airport interception. Crucially, the applicant did not attend the hearing before the Tribunal, preventing any further questioning to clarify the claims and assess their veracity. The Tribunal noted that while the onus of proof is not strictly applied in administrative inquiries, applicants must supply the necessary facts in sufficient detail for the decision-maker to establish the relevant facts, and a decision-maker is not obliged to construct the applicant's case or uncritically accept all allegations.

Applying these principles, the Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied that the applicant had suffered past persecution or had a well-founded fear of future persecution for any of the specified reasons. Similarly, the lack of detail and the inability to question the applicant meant the Tribunal could not be satisfied of a real risk of significant harm upon removal. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visa.