2010724 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by two applicants from Vietnam. The applicants claimed they had been monitored by local police due to their success in business, which led to suspicions of them financially supporting anti-government elements. They feared arrest, interrogation, detention, and loss of social benefits upon return to Vietnam, believing the government could not offer them protection due to the country's one-party rule and the household registration scheme. The Tribunal considered the claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958, and if not, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to Vietnam, they faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act. The court also had to consider whether the applicants had discharged their responsibility to specify their claims and provide supporting documentation.

The court noted that the applicants failed to attend a hearing invited by the Tribunal, despite a reminder, and had not provided detailed claims or supporting documentation. It was observed that the applicants had made multiple departures and returns to Vietnam on their own passports. The court affirmed that the responsibility lay with the applicants to specify their claims and provide evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the applicants did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the Act, as they had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.