2014524 (Refugee)

This matter concerned applications for protection visas by a family unit from Vietnam. The primary applicant claimed he could not return to Vietnam due to issues with a loan shark, while also alleging political persecution. The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was a real chance the applicants would be persecuted for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1)(a) of the Act, or if there were substantial grounds for believing they would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Vietnam under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered the applicants' claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information. The primary applicant's claim of persecution was based on alleged political opinion, including online activism and attendance at anti-government protests, and association with the Vietnam Reform Revolutionary Party (Viet Tan). The Tribunal also examined the claim regarding debt to a loan shark, noting that conduct engaged in for the purposes of strengthening refugee claims could be relevant.

The Tribunal found that the second, third, and fourth applicants were members of the same family unit as the first applicant. Consequently, the fate of their applications was dependent on the outcome of the first applicant's application. The decision under review was remitted.