2017446 (Refugee)
[2023] AATA 1037
•13 January 2023
2017446 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1037 (13 January 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW: Application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa subclass XE-790 Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (‘SHEV’) under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’)
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE: Ms Khanh Hoang, solicitor
CASE NUMBER: 2017446
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Vietnam
MEMBER:Kate Chapple
DATE:13 January 2023
PLACE OF DECISION: Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Statement made on 13 January 2023 at 1:03pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Vietnam – religion – Roman Catholic nun – mass raided and shut down, attendees assaulted and property damaged – departed unlawfully by boat – political opinion – participation in protest and membership of political party in Australia – community and online activity – credible evidence in circumstances – activities in Australia not for sole purpose of strengthening claim – genuineness of police notices purportedly issued after applicant’s departure – country information – decision under review remittedLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5J, 36(2)(a), 46A, 91LCASES
DBB16 v MIBP (2018) 260 FCR 447
MIAC v SZJGV (2009) 238 CLR 642
NBKT v MIMA (2006) 156 FCR 419
SZKHD v MIAC [2008] FCA 112
SZKOZ v MIAC [2007] FCA 1798
SZMPJ v MIAC [2008] FMCA 1640
SZMZA v MIAC (No 2) [2008] FMCA 1418
SZOZT v MIAC [2011] FCA 1245
SZRWG v MIAC [2013] FMCA 53Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
OVERVIEW
The applicant, a Vietnamese woman aged [Age 1], grew up with her parents and [siblings] in a rural commune in Nghe An province, Vietnam. She is the [Birth order]. Her parents were farmers and raised their children in the Catholic faith. The applicant completed to year [Number 1] of schooling, then helped look after her younger siblings so her parents could work on their farm. She was committed to her faith from a young age, helping often at their local parish church then assisting its priests for a number of years before entering a Catholic convent at age [Age 2] to become and live as a nun. She subsequently took her vows and remained in the convent for a total of [Number 2] years.
In July 2012, the applicant responded to a call from nuns of her order in the province to attend a mass at a chapel in [Location 1] commune whose land had been donated to the church for parishioner worship. The Vietnamese government objected to the use of the land by the Catholic church; authorities raided and shut down the mass. The priest, nuns, including the applicant, and parishioners were assaulted and harmed, and church property was damaged. Fearing the authorities would arrest and harm her, the applicant hid at her parents’ home for three months then returned to the convent for a short time before finally leaving in February 2013, aged [Age 3], to help care for her gravely ill father who died soon after.
The applicant was approached by a man who offered to arrange her passage to Australia in return for payment. Worried the authorities were still after her, the applicant fled her village by bus and boarded a boat from Vung Tau, Vietnam in April 2013.
According to departmental records, the applicant arrived in Australia by sea in the vicinity of [Location 2] [in] May 2013. She was placed in immigration detention upon her arrival and released on 15 October 2014 having the day prior been granted a Temporary Safe Haven Humanitarian Stay Visa and associated Bridging Visa.
At the time, the applicant was considered under Australian law to be an ‘unauthorised maritime arrival’ and therefore barred by s 46A of the Act from making any other visa applications without ministerial approval. The Minister subsequently intervened and lifted the s 46A bar and on 25 May 2017 the applicant lodged an application for an XE-785 Temporary Protection Visa (‘TPV’).
On 6 August 2018, the Full Federal Court handed down the judgment in DBB16 v MIBP (2018) 260 FCR 447. As a result, the applicant was determined not to be an ‘unauthorised maritime arrival’ due to her manner of arrival, and on 2 July 2020 the Department notified the applicant that her TPV application was invalid.
On 16 July 2020, the Minister intervened and lifted the bar under s 91L of the Act to allow a further visa application. On 4 August 2020, the applicant lodged an application for a SHEV.
On 16 November 2020, the Minister’s delegate made a decision to refuse to grant the applicant a SHEV.
On 3 December 2020, the applicant made an application for review of the delegate’s decision.
The applicant claims that if she returns to Vietnam she will be targeted and harmed by the Vietnamese authorities for her participation in the [Location 1] mass, and her involvement in Australia in a Catholic church-led Formosa vigil and her membership and involvement in the anti-Vietnamese government activities of the Viet Tan party.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
Protection visa application and related material
Applicant’s TPV application.
Applicant’s SHEV application.
English translation of Certification dated 20 November 2016 from [Convent] of [Location 3] as to the applicant’s baptism, conformation and convent dates.
Applicant’s statement dated 2 August 2020 regarding her claims for protection as a Catholic nun who was involved in the [Location 1] mass and as a member of the Viet Tan.
Various letters from the applicant’s local parish priest; letter from [Organisation 2]; and letter from the Viet Tan [State] Chapter.
Australian Human Rights Commission report: Nine Vietnamese men in immigration detention v Commonwealth of Australia (DIBP) [2017] AusHRC 118.
Other departmental records:
17.1.Decision record relating to the delegate’s refusal decision.
17.2.Case file.
17.3.Internal records relating to the applicant.
Application for review
The Tribunal wrote to the applicant’s representative inviting the applicant to attend a hearing on 6 January 2023 and to provide pre-hearing submissions.
Prior to the hearing, the applicant’s representative provided to the Tribunal:
19.1.Confirmation that the applicant intended to participate in the hearing with the assistance of her representative.
19.2.A request that the Tribunal take evidence from the [Official] of the [State] Chapter of the Viet Tan.
19.3.Representative’s submission dated 3 January 2023 setting out the applicant’s protection claims and evidence in support, including: letters and photographs demonstrating the applicant’s involvement with the Viet Tan democracy movement and her participation in protest activities against the Vietnamese Communist government; the applicant’s [Social media] posts sharing articles critical of the Vietnamese government and its suppression and persecution of objectors; letters from the applicant’s local parish priest; letter from [Organisation 2]; and various media articles reporting on the activities of Viet Tan and the treatment of objectors by the Vietnamese government.
The Hearing
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal at a hearing conducted in person on 6 January 2023, with the assistance of an interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages who also attended in person. The applicant’s representative was present at the hearing via video link.
Applicant’s evidence
The applicant gave the following evidence:
21.1.The applicant was born in [Year 1] and grew up in [commune], Nghe An province, Vietnam with her parents and [siblings], of whom she is the [Birth order]. Her parents were farmers. Her father died in 2013. Her mother and siblings, other than a [sibling] who lives in [Country], still live and farm in the village. The applicant completed to year [Number 1] at the local village school. When she left school, the applicant helped care for her younger siblings so her parents could work on the farm.
21.2.The applicant’s parents practised the Catholic faith and raised their children as Catholics. As a family they regularly attended the local [parish church] in the Catholic diocese of Vinh. The parents were not leaders or teachers in the church, but helped often with upkeep and activities. The applicant was baptised as a newborn and confirmed at age 7. She was committed to her faith from a young age, attending church daily for the morning or night mass, which typically went for about an hour, and volunteering. For [Number 3] years from age 18, the applicant helped the parish priests, who she named; she assisted them with their duties, cleaned the church premises and learned about the Catholic faith. She named the diocese bishop at the time she left Vietnam.
21.3.On one occasion, when the applicant was very young, her father had been helping at the parish, building kneeling benches. He went to buy some timber and he was summoned for questioning by the local authorities. Nothing further happened to her father on that occasion or since. She is aware however of a church leader who was summoned and incarcerated for their involvement in the Catholic religion.
21.4.The applicant decided she wanted to become a nun during the time she was helping the parish priests. It was her own decision to sacrifice her life for God. Her parents were very supportive. At [Age 2], she entered the [Location 3] [convent], which was part of the order of nuns called [Order]. The convent was about 5 or 6 kilometres from the commune where her family lived. Over [Number 4] women lived at the convent; [Number 5] of them were around the applicant’s age, and the rest were older nuns. The applicant named the three head nuns who served during her [Number 2] years at the convent. Convent life involved learning about faith and service, being taught and mentored by older nuns and the priest, prayer, helping younger nuns, and doing ministry work at different parishes and with the poor in the community. After 4 years, the applicant took her vows and a ceremony was held at the convent chapel.
21.5.The applicant didn’t have any problems with the Vietnamese authorities during her convent years other than on one occasion. She responded to a call from sisters of her [order] in other parishes or convents of Vinh province to attend mass at the church in [Location 1] commune [in] July 2012. The church was [Distance] kilometres from the convent; the applicant had attended there only once before, about 5 or 6 months earlier. The church land had been donated by (named) private individuals for parishioner worship. The Vietnamese government has long opposed the Catholic religion and its followers; in this case, the authorities objected to the use of the land by the Catholic church. The sisters were gathering to pray for peace and for the authorities not to take the land back. The applicant also referred to the mass as a candle light vigil.
21.6.On the day of the mass, the applicant arrived at the [Location 1] church at 7am. She spent a number of hours with the other sisters of her [order] talking and doing their normal activities before they joined 30 to 40 local parishioners and the (named) priest for the mass around 2pm. Soon after the service began, the authorities arrived, including uniformed police, the army, and gangsters hired by the police. They started throwing rocks at the parishioners, the mass was shut down, and the violence escalated inside and outside the church. Parishioners, including the applicant, other nuns, and the priest, were assaulted and harmed. People were scared and running for their lives. The scene was chaotic; it was hard to comprehend. Before long, some 700 people had gathered at the church from nearby parishes to give their support. It seems that it was known that a situation had been brewing over the past few days and, in anticipation, the Bishop of the Vinh diocese had made arrangements for this to occur.
21.7.The applicant was hit with rocks and batons; she sustained injuries to her face and lip, lost a tooth and damaged other teeth. She thinks the church and statues were badly damaged too, but she can’t be sure because she needed to get away quickly. People helped her to a vehicle, like a passenger coach, and she was taken to her parents’ home for some protection rather than going back to the convent, which she considered risky. The local village nurse treated her injuries and she stayed with her parents until September 2012 when she returned to the convent.
21.8.Sometime after the applicant returned to the convent, her mother told her that the police had come to their home to inquire about her whereabouts. Her mother didn’t tell her what the police said or how often they came, she thinks because her mother didn’t want her to be more scared.
21.9.The applicant was never visited by police in Vietnam in relation to the [Location 1] mass or any other matter. Apart from that incident, the applicant had not been politically active or involved in any activities opposing the government whilst she was in Vietnam. Her parents and siblings had never been active or involved in this way. They wouldn’t dare speak up for fear of being arrested.
21.10.At the end of February 2013, the applicant applied to leave the convent and go back to her parents’ home to help care for her gravely ill father. He died a few days later. The applicant met a (named) man at a coffee shop near Vinh city who asked her if she wanted to go overseas. She wanted to get away from Vietnam to clear her mind and avoid the authorities if they were still looking for her. She believed that if they found her they would have arrested her for taking part in the [Location 1] mass.
21.11.The man she met made the arrangements for the applicant to travel to Australia. She didn’t discuss her decision with her family, however her brother looked after the payment without her involvement. The applicant said she couldn’t provide any details of what her brother did or how much he paid because she didn’t know. This was despite the Tribunal pointing out to her that she had provided details in her application.
21.12.The applicant travelled by bus to Vung Tau and boarded a vessel late on [a night in] April 2013. She did not have a passport. She managed to flee the country without encountering any trouble. She arrived in Australia by boat [in] May 2013 and went straight into immigration detention. The applicant was released from detention [in] October 2014 and lived in a hotel [in Suburb 1] for 3 to 4 weeks before moving to a church community house in [Suburb 2].
21.13.The applicant has been living in the [Suburb 2] community ever since. She works as [an Occupation] at [a Workplace] 40 minutes’ drive away. From around November 2014, she has been involved with both [Church], the main Catholic parish church, and the local community church, which is attended mostly by the Vietnamese parishioners. She attends masses and prayer groups and helps with church activities.
21.14.In 2016, the applicant took part in a prayer vigil in [Suburb 2] organised by the parish church to voice objection to the Vietnamese government allowing the Taiwanese company, Formosa, to cause environmental damage due to chemical spills from their factory in Vietnam. The applicant knew two (named) priests in Vietnam who had called for fairness from the Vietnamese government.
21.15.The applicant joined the Viet Tan [in] October 2018. After the applicant arrived in the [Suburb 2] community in November 2014, her time was taken up with church activities for a couple of years, then in 2016 or 2017 she met a man in the [Suburb 2] area who started talking to her about the Viet Tan. She was interested to find out more about the party because she had seen and experienced in Vietnam the wrongdoing of the Vietnamese government towards Catholics and their appropriation of land from the church. Now that she was in a free country, she wanted to be able to raise her voice against the wrongdoing and fight for Vietnamese people’s rights against the government. As part of her Viet Tan involvement, the applicant posts information on social media and the party’s website about raids or arrests by the Vietnamese government against objectors. She had wanted to be involved in these sorts of activities in Vietnam, but didn’t because the authorities would have arrested her.
21.16.The applicant opened her [Social media] account in 2017. She opened it because she wanted to share information about wrongdoing by the Vietnamese government, for example land grabs from the Catholic church and suppression of Catholics. She has gained many followers, especially through the website. She didn’t have a social media account in Vietnam because there wasn’t internet or phone access and everything was censored by the government.
21.17.The applicant’s mother told her the police had come to the family home a few years ago and inquired about the applicant’s Viet Tan and [Social media] activities. Her mother never told her what questions they asked. They haven’t been back since.
21.18.The Tribunal explained that Australian law says that when assessing whether an applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution in their home country, any conduct engaged in by the applicant while in Australia must be disregarded unless the applicant can satisfy the Tribunal that they engaged in the conduct for reasons other than to strengthen their claim for protection. This meant that if the Tribunal determined that the applicant had joined and participated in the Viet Tan and made anti-Vietnamese government [Social media] posts to make it appear that she opposed the Vietnamese government and would be a target of harm if she returned to Vietnam, then the Tribunal must disregard those activities in determining whether she was owed protection in Australia. The applicant told the Tribunal that she understood.
21.19.The Tribunal questioned the applicant about the copies of the three notices (each in Vietnamese and translated into English) she had provided to the Department as part of her SHEV application (‘the notices’). The notices appeared to be from the [Village] Police Chief, addressed to the applicant, stating both her convent address and her parents’ address, and headed, first, ‘Invitation’, and second and third, ‘Order to Attend an Interview’. The Tribunal raised the following concerns about the notices with the applicant at hearing:
21.19.1.All notices referred to clarifying issues relating to ‘the candle light vigil at [Location 1] County, Nghe An province’, however they did not specify the date on which the vigil took place.
21.19.2.If the notices did relate to the mass or vigil at [Location 1] [in] July 2012, why did it take the police 9 months to start issuing the notices to the applicant.
21.19.3.The first notice dated 20 April 2013 invited the applicant to attend the police office at 2pm on the date of the notice. The Tribunal commented that it would normally be expected that a recipient of such a notice would be given a period of time in advance of the attendance date.
21.19.4.The second notice dated 15 May 2013 ordered the applicant to attend the police office at 2pm on 3 May 2013, 12 days earlier than the date of the notice. The Tribunal commented that it did not make sense for a notice to require attendance prior to the date of the notice.
21.19.5.The third notice dated 20 May 2013 ordered the applicant to attend the police office at 2pm on 10 May 2013, 10 days earlier than the date of the notice. The Tribunal commented again that it did not make sense for a notice to require attendance prior to the date of the notice.
21.19.6.The Tribunal queried whether the notices were genuine.
21.20.The applicant gave the following evidence in response:
21.20.1.The applicant was already in Australia when the notices were issued.
21.20.2.The authorities keep records of all citizens and of Catholics and their churches. They would have had a record of the applicant being a nun at the [convent] and would have known she attended the [Location 1] mass.
21.20.3.The applicant doesn’t know anything about the notices, why they were issued, and how they were delivered. One of her brothers emailed them to her when she was out of detention. She hasn’t discussed the notices with anyone in her family.
21.20.4.The applicant can’t say if the notices are genuine or fake. She is not sure if her mother or siblings were trying to help her. They sent the notices to her and she lodged them with the Department.
21.21.The applicant or her family hasn’t received any other notices in relation to the [Location 1] incident. She believes the Vietnamese authorities are aware that she is in Australia because while she was in detention, there was a data leak from the Department’s records of information relating to asylum seeker detainees. She is aware that a Vietnamese government team came to Australia and people were deported.
21.22.The Tribunal asked the applicant what she thinks would happen to her if she returned to Vietnam. She said that she is at risk due to her anti-Vietnamese government [Social media] posts and being a member of the Viet Tan, which requires her to stand up and voice her objections. She believes she is already on the government’s radar, and she would be arrested at the airport and incarcerated.
21.23.The applicant would still practise her Catholic faith if she returned to Vietnam. She remains worried about her involvement in the [Location 1] incident and whether the police are still after her, however she is most scared now of the repercussions of her being a member of the Viet Tan. She believes she’ll be arrested for that before anything else.
21.24.The applicant would not go back to her village because she is afraid she’ll be pursued and arrested. She doesn’t believe there is anywhere she could live that would be safe from harm, and because of her anti-government activities, she would not receive protection from the Vietnamese authorities. Rather, she would be targeted by them.
Evidence from [Official] of [State] Chapter of Viet Tan
At the applicant’s request, the Tribunal agreed to take evidence from the [Official] of the [State] Chapter of the Viet Tan. He gave the following evidence:
22.1.He came to Australia in [Year 2] as a refugee. He has since become an Australian citizen.
22.2.He has been involved with the Viet Tan since [Year 3]. In his role as the [Official] of the [State] Chapter, he looks after external affairs including community building and liaising with members of parliament.
22.3.He first met the applicant 6 or 7 years ago. His party organised community [events] for asylum seekers in the area.
22.4.There is a rigorous process that people go through before being recommended and accepted as members of the Viet Tan. They need to spend time understanding the party and its objectives and what is required of them as members. They need to be observed by party leaders to ensure their willingness and commitment. They are also verified by third parties.
22.5.In his experience, it is common for Vietnamese asylum seekers to want to join the Viet Tan, however 40 to 50% of applicants are declined because they are only seeking to use the party to bolster their protection claims. He is not aware of any Viet Tan members who have failed to get protection and been returned to Vietnam.
22.6.The applicant told him about her time as a nun in Vietnam and her involvement in the [Location 1] mass. She told him she was opposed to the Vietnamese government, and wanted to contribute to the Viet Tan movement to help bring change in Vietnam. He has observed the applicant over a few years and sees that she is passionate about achieving change in the communist regime. She has learned about the party and gained an understanding of it role and aims. The applicant was tested over one to two years to see how she could contribute to the party, and she was given good references by someone from her village who came to Australia at the same time and the Father at [Church] in [Suburb 2]. This qualified her to become a member of the Viet Tan.
22.7.As a member of the Viet Tan, the applicant is involved in fundraising and sharing information on social media. As a mature woman, she knows how to deal with people and helps build relationships between members. She attends regular meetings and spends the equivalent of a day each week on party activities.
22.8.The Vietnamese government view the Viet Tan as a terrorist group. Every time he calls an old friend he went to school with in Vietnam, the Vietnamese police call his friend to the police station and monitor him for days afterwards.
22.9.The Vietnamese government is always looking for information. If the applicant returns to Vietnam, he is sure she would be questioned and arrested for her involvement in the Viet Tan. He has a party friend from Sydney who returned to Vietnam and was jailed for 12 years. The United Nations declared last year that he had been wrongly arrested. The Australian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister are trying to secure his release. The applicant faces something similar.
Representative’s submission
The applicant’s representative confirmed the applicant’s reliance on the submission dated 3 January 2023 and supporting material. She said the applicant had indicated to her that she wanted to give evidence about the failed asylum seeker claim. The Tribunal invited the applicant to do so, however she replied that she couldn’t recall what that was about. The Tribunal advised the representative that this claim would be addressed in the Tribunal’s decision, along with the other protection claims.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The Tribunal considers the applicant’s evidence at hearing truthful and credible taking into account the circumstances of her passage to Australia, her subsequent detention, and the significant time that has elapsed between her departure from Vietnam and the Tribunal hearing.
The Tribunal considers the witness’s evidence truthful and credible.
Based on the applicant’s evidence at hearing, the Tribunal accepts the representative’s submission dated 3 January 2023 as a reliable record of the applicant’s protection claims, which are headlined as follows:
26.1.[Location 1] candle light vigil.
26.2.Viet Tan membership and protests.
26.3.[Social media] posts.
26.4.Failed asylum seeker and data breach.
In particular, and directly relevant to the applicant’s protection claims, the Tribunal accepts:
27.1.The applicant was a Catholic nun in Vietnam.
27.2.The applicant’s account of her involvement in the [Location 1] mass or candle light vigil, and being assaulted and harmed by the Vietnamese authorities.
27.3.Having devoted most of her life in Vietnam to the Catholic faith and having lived and served as a nun in a Catholic convent for [Number 2] years, the applicant feared being further targeted and harmed by the Vietnamese authorities because of her involvement in the [Location 1] mass or candle light vigil [in] July 2012.
27.4.The Vietnamese authorities visited the applicant’s family home and inquired as to her whereabouts and activities on one or more occasions after the [Location 1] incident and since she’s been in Australia.
27.5.The applicant left Vietnam principally to avoid being further targeted and harmed by the Vietnamese authorities.
27.6.The applicant did not have any knowledge of the existence of the three notices until she received them on email from her family, and further, she did not have any understanding of their meaning or effect, or whether they were genuine or fake.
27.7.The applicant remains strongly committed to her practice of the Catholic faith in Australia, and would continue as such if she returns to Vietnam.
27.8.The applicant participated in the Formosa protest organised by the Catholic church in [Suburb 2] in 2016.
27.9.It is likely that as a result of the Department of Home Affairs data breach, the Vietnamese authorities became aware that the applicant was, at the time of the data breach, in Australian immigration detention.
27.10.Given the applicant’s [Social media] postings since 2017, it is likely that the Vietnamese authorities are aware of the applicant’s opposition to the Vietnamese government and her involvement in the Viet Tan.
27.11.The applicant has been an active and committed member of the [State] Chapter of the Viet Tan since October 2018 and her responsibilities include protesting and voicing objections to the actions of the Vietnamese Communist government, and sharing anti-Vietnamese government material via the internet and social media.
27.12.If the applicant returns to Vietnam, she would continue to protest and voice objections to the actions of the Vietnamese Communist government in accordance with her membership commitment to the Viet Tan.
27.13.If the applicant returns to Vietnam, she fears being further targeted and harmed by the Vietnamese authorities.
Country information
The Tribunal notes the following country information (also set out in more detail in Attachment B) is consistent with the applicant’s claims and evidence:
28.1.The Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) is suspicious of any organised group, including religious, that may challenge its authority, and therefore seeks to control them.
28.2.[News source 1] reported online [in] July 2012 that on the evening of [Date] July 2012, [Father A] met with faithful in a chapel of [Location 1] to celebrate mass. A group of thugs linked to the Vietnam Patriotic Front, instigated by local authorities, who pay these groups to attack Catholic communities, struck with force and brutality, injuring dozens of people. In the recent weeks, [Location 1] district officials patrolled the streets issuing warnings against lay Catholic and clergy guilty of illegally celebrating the Mass. Police and security agents threatened Christians and forced the faithful to promise not to participate in functions or ceremonies in the future. Parishioners protested outside the district authority’s offices demanding an end to violations and respect for religious freedom.
28.3.[News source 2] reported online [in] July 2012 that: “A priest from Nghe An province has said that security officials barred access to a local chapel on Sunday and beat parishioners attempting to attend Mass. [Father A] said some 500 officials, most of them not in uniform, converged on the [Location 1] chapel in [a] village and tried to stop him from saying Mass. “When I arrived there at 2:30 p.m., officials prevented me from entering the chapel and hit me,” he said, adding that about 20 parishioners who tried to protect him were also badly beaten. “One woman had her head seriously injured and is still receiving medical treatment at a hospital in Hanoi,” [Fr A] said. He added that two nuns from the [Order] were dragged from the chapel and beaten. Hundreds of local Catholics and those from neighboring areas intervened to rescue the victims and drive off their attackers, the priest said. At 4 p.m. he returned to the chapel and held Mass while an estimated 2,000 local villagers stood guard and security officials watched from a distance. “I will continue to visit [the chapel] and conduct pastoral activities for local people next weekend for the sake of local Catholics,” said [Fr A]. The priest, based in [Location 4] some 30 kilometers away, began serving six months ago at the chapel, which was built in 2010 and serves 300 local parishioners. Church sources have said that in recent weeks authorities have asked local Catholics not to attend chapel services. The chapel has been the target of previous attacks by authorities, who made threats against parishioners and attempted to cut electricity lines, the sources said. In November, a home-made bomb damaged the chapel’s roof, windows and flooring.”
28.4.DFAT assesses that, in general, Catholics are able to worship freely and receive sacraments. The distinction between faith and politics can however be difficult to draw. Catholics who are perceived to challenge the authority or interests of the CPV and its policies, particularly through political activism, face a moderate risk of official discrimination from authorities or their proxies, which may include arrest or violence.
28.5.Even within a local area where Catholics are susceptible to persecution (such as the Diocese of Vinh), the level of vulnerability of a given individual to persecution varies from family to family, individual to individual. Indicators include a history of poor relations with government, having been a faith teacher or organiser or member of a parish council or body responsible for parish affairs.
28.6.In June 2022, the Vietnamese government published a draft decree under the Law on Belief and Religion that would tighten control and suppression of, and punishments for, registered religious activities.
28.7.On 2 December 2022, the United States Secretary of State placed Vietnam on the Special Watch List for engaging in or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom.
28.8.The Guardian reported online on 8 October 2016 that: “Vietnam has declared a US-based activist group a terrorist organisation and warned that any Vietnamese found to be involved with the group would be regarded as co-conspirators and punished. The government said the California-based Viet Tan, or Vietnam Reform Party, had recruited and trained operatives to use weapons and explosives. Vietnam has long been sensitive to the activities of Viet Tan, calling the group “reactionaries”, but the announcement carried on state television was the first time it had designated it a terrorist organisation. The police-run ministry of public security said Viet Tan had trained members in militant activities, kidnaps and murders and arranged for operatives to sneak into Vietnam to organise protests and instigate violence…Despite steadily introducing more liberal social and economic reforms in recent years, the Communist party has a zero-tolerance approach to criticism and has punished detractors harshly…”
28.9.rfa (Radio Free Asia) reported online on 15 June 2022 that: “The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) has criticized the case against a Vietnamese Australian facing a 12-year sentence as lacking grounds for arrest. The comments came in a report released in the first week of June, concerning the case of Chau Van Kham, an Australian resident and member of the banned U.S.-based Viet Tan opposition party. WGAD also released a report on Nguyen Bao Tien, a driver who volunteered for a publishing house founded by a jailed activist…Chau Van Kham, 72, was arrested on January 13, 2019 on charges of "operating to overthrow the people's administration." He was later sentenced to 12 years in prison on another charge of "terrorism aimed at opposing the people's administration," because he was a member of Viet Tan, labelled a "terrorist" organization by Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security. Viet Tan was described by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights as a moderate activist group advocating for democratic reform…In an interview with Radio Free Asia this week, Viet Tan chairman Do Hoang Diem said: “Right now we are in Australia and the purpose of our trip is to meet Australian politicians and elected officials to campaign for Mr. Chau Van Kham.”…In March the Vietnamese government responded to criticism by saying Kham was arrested for violating Vietnamese law, not for his democratic views. The government said his arrest and sentencing were carried out in accordance with Vietnamese law, consistent with international conventions that Vietnam has ratified. Hanoi said it had announced that Viet Tan was a terrorist organization with the aim of overthrowing the government by methods such as armed activity, directly threatening national security and social order, and recruiting and training members in the use of weapons and explosives. The government said Kham illegally entered Vietnam on January 11, 2019, under the direction of Viet Tan, to organize recruitment and training for sabotage and terrorist activities…”
28.10.DFAT reports it is difficult to make an overall assessment of risks to activists as there are no clear patterns to determine who will be arrested or when. Those who publicly criticise the Government face a moderate risk of official discrimination regardless of what they are protesting. Those who organise protests are more likely to face discrimination, but the possibility of a low-level activist being arrested cannot be discounted.
28.11.DFAT reports it is difficult to give an overall assessment of the risk to online activists, given that Government crackdowns have been observed in relation to a wide range of issues at different times and against different kinds of people. DFAT assesses that online activists face a moderate risk of official discrimination. A repeated pattern of online activity would generally, but not always, attract the attention of authorities.
28.12.DFAT assesses that most people who have been subject to people smuggling are seen by the Government as victims, not criminals. Those who use their time overseas to publicly oppose the Government, or who are wanted for similar actions domestically, would be treated in accordance with the procedures set out in Political Opinion (Actual or imputed) and the laws related to illegal emigration might apply to those people.
28.13.In practice, the Government imposes limits on entry and exit for political activists and Government critics.
28.14.The Department of Home Affairs website confirms that in February 2014, a routine report released on the department's website unintentionally enabled access to some personal information about people who were in immigration detention in Australia on 31 January 2014. The report of the Australian Human Rights Commission addresses this data breach.
Findings
The Tribunal considers that the Vietnamese authorities viewed the [Location 1] mass or candle light vigil as an activity challenging the government’s authority to control members of the Catholic faith and the use of land by the Catholic church.
The Tribunal considers the applicant’s involvement in the [Location 1] mass or candle light vigil is likely to have been, and continue to be, viewed by the Vietnamese authorities as an activity challenging the government’s authority to control members of the Catholic faith and the use of land by the Catholic church.
The Tribunal considers it is likely that the three notices are not genuine, and that a member or members of her family made a poor attempt at fabricating the notices with the intention of assisting the applicant with her protection claims.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s additional sur place claims based on her participation in the Formosa protest organised by the Catholic church in [Suburb 2] in 2016 and her subsequent membership of, involvement in, and responsibilities with the [State] Chapter of the Viet Tan, all being conduct engaged in by the applicant after she arrived in Australia. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that:
32.1.In determining whether an applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution, any conduct engaged in by the applicant in Australia is to be disregarded unless they can demonstrate that the conduct was engaged in otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening their claim to be a refugee.[1]
32.2.People outside their countries of origin may become refugees due to changes in circumstances in their home countries or as a result of their own actions.[2]
32.3.It has been recognised that a person may become a refugee sur place as a result of voluntarily participating in activities which would give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her country of origin. The types of activity which might be engaged in by persons outside their countries of origin including actions undertaken out of genuine political motives.[3]
32.4.The applicant bears the responsibility or onus of satisfying the Tribunal that the conduct was otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening their refugee claim.[4]
32.5.Where conduct in Australia could strengthen the applicant’s refugee claim, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s motivation for engaging in the conduct before considering the consequences that may flow from that conduct.[5]
32.6.The conduct must have been engaged in for the sole purpose of strengthening the refugee claim.[6]
[1] s 5J(6) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
[2] Guide to Refugee Law (updated as at November 2022) at pages 3-16 to 3-22.
[3] Guide to Refugee Law (updated as at November 2022) at pages 3-16 to 3-22.
[4] NBKT v MIMA (2006) 156 FCR 419 at [89]; SZKOZ v MIAC [2007] FCA 1798 at [28]–[29]; SZKHD v MIAC [2008] FCA 112 at [31]; SZMZA v MIAC (No 2) [2008] FMCA 1418 at [16]–[17] and SZMPJ v MIAC [2008] FMCA 1640 at [25]–[27].
[5] SZOZT v MIAC [2011] FCA 1245; SZRWG v MIAC [2013] FMCA 53.
[6] MIAC v SZJGV (2009) 238 CLR 642 at [13], [59]–[60].
Based on the evidence of the applicant and the witness, the Tribunal considers that the applicant’s motivation for participating in the Formosa protest organised by the Catholic church in [Suburb 2] in 2016 and her subsequent membership of, involvement in, and responsibilities with the [State] Chapter of the Viet Tan was and remains a genuine intention and commitment to raise awareness of and voice her objection to the Vietnamese government’s violation of the human rights of Vietnamese citizens, including members of the Catholic faith, and suppression and punishment of anti-government views and activities.
The Tribunal does not consider that the applicant engaged in this conduct for the purpose of strengthening her protection claims.
The Tribunal considers it is likely that the applicant’s participation in the Formosa protest organised by the Catholic church in [Suburb 2] in 2016 and her subsequent [Social media] postings, and membership of, involvement in, and responsibilities with the [State] Chapter of the Viet Tan is or would be viewed by Vietnamese authorities as activities challenging or opposing the Vietnamese government.
The Tribunal considers that for these reasons, it is likely the applicant is a person of adverse interest to the Vietnamese authorities.
Based on the country information, the Tribunal does not consider that the applicant’s status as a failed asylum seeker is reason alone to make her a person of adverse interest to the Vietnamese authorities.
The Tribunal considers that if the applicant returns to Vietnam, there is a real and not remote chance that in the reasonably foreseeable future she will be targeted and face questioning, monitoring, imprisonment and harm by the Vietnamese authorities.
The Tribunal considers that if the applicant returns to Vietnam, there would be no protection available to the applicant from the Vietnamese authorities because they would be the perpetrators or agents of the treatment towards the applicant.
The Tribunal considers that if the applicant returns to Vietnam, there would be no safe place in the country for her to reside because the Vietnamese authorities would be aware of and monitor her whereabouts.
The Tribunal considers that if the applicant returns to Vietnam, she would be unable to modify her behaviour to avoid being targeted and subjected to questioning, monitoring, imprisonment and harm by the Vietnamese authorities because her vulnerability to this treatment relates to her past, ongoing and intended future anti-Vietnamese government activities.
Other considerations
In considering the claims and evidence, the Tribunal has also taken account of:
42.1.The Department of Home Affairs ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’.
42.2.The Tribunal’s Migration and Refugee Division Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility.
Application of law
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether she is entitled to complementary protection. Attachment A sets out the applicable law.
Based on the findings:
44.1.The applicant is a non-citizen in Australia.
44.2.The applicant fears being persecuted in Vietnam for her past, ongoing and intended future involvement in political and religious activities that do, or are perceived to challenge or oppose the Vietnamese government.
44.3.There is a real chance that, if the applicant returns to Vietnam, she would be persecuted for her past, ongoing and intended future involvement in political and religious activities that do, or are perceived to challenge or oppose the Vietnamese government.
44.4.The persecution would involve serious harm to the applicant including being targeted and subjected to questioning, monitoring, imprisonment and harm by the Vietnamese authorities.
44.5.The real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Vietnam.
44.6.There are no effective protection measures available to the applicant in Vietnam.
44.7.The applicant could not take reasonable steps to modify her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in Vietnam.
44.8.The applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution as defined in s 5J of the Act.
44.9.The applicant is outside Vietnam, her country of nationality, and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail herself of the protection of Vietnam.
CONCLUSION
Based on the evidence, analysis, reasoning and findings set out above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
decision
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Kate Chapple
MemberATTACHMENT A
Summary of applicable law
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B).
Relevant extracts from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a) severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b) pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d) arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a) that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b) that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a) for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b) for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c) for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d) for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e) for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a) a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b) if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
5H Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a) in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b) in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note: For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
5J Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a) the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b) there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c) the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note: For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note: For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a) conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b) conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c) without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a) that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b) the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c) the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a) a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b) significant physical harassment of the person;
(c) significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d) significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e) denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f) denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b) disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note: Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a) a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b) the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c) any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d) the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a) protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b) the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a) the person can access the protection; and
(b) the protection is durable; and
(c) in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
36 Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a) a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c) a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a) the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b) the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c) the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d) the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e) the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a) it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b) the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c) the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
ATTACHMENT B
Relevant Country Information
Australian Government Department of Home Affairs website
In February 2014, a routine report released on the department's website unintentionally enabled access to some personal information about people who were in immigration detention in Australia on 31 January 2014.
U.S. Department of State Religious Freedom Designations – Secretary of State Press Statement, December 2, 2022
Around the world, governments and non-state actors harass, threaten, jail, and even kill individuals on account of their beliefs. In some instances, they stifle individuals’ freedom of religion or belief to exploit opportunities for political gain. These actions sow division, undermine economic security, and threaten political stability and peace. The United States will not stand by in the face of these abuses.
Today, I am announcing designations against Burma, the People’s Republic of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, the DPRK, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan as Countries of Particular Concern under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom. I am also placing Algeria, the Central African Republic, Comoros, and Vietnam on the Special Watch List for engaging in or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom. Finally, I am designating al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Houthis, ISIS-Greater Sahara, ISIS-West Africa, Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin, the Taliban, and the Wagner Group based on its actions in the Central African Republic as Entities of Particular Concern.
Our announcement of these designations is in keeping with our values and interests to protect national security and to advance human rights around the globe. Countries that effectively safeguard this and other human rights are more peaceful, stable, prosperous and more reliable partners of the United States than those that do not.
We will continue to carefully monitor the status of freedom of religion or belief in every country around the world and advocate for those facing religious persecution or discrimination. We will also regularly engage countries about our concerns regarding limitations on freedom of religion or belief, regardless of whether those countries have been designated. We welcome the opportunity to meet with all governments to address laws and practices that do not meet international standards and commitments, and to outline concrete steps in a pathway to removal from these lists.
DFAT Country Information Report Vietnam 11 January 2022
Religion
3.13 Vietnam is officially an atheist state. Article 24 of the Constitution nevertheless guarantees a right to freedom of belief and religion. In practice, religious groups are required to register with the Government and the authorities place restrictions on the day-to-day activities of some believers. The 2020 US Department of State International Religious Freedom report estimates, based on census data, that 14 per cent of Vietnamese have some religious faith, with 6 per cent of the population Catholic and 5 per cent Buddhist. Protestants make up about 1 per cent of the population. Small religions and traditional religious-cultural practice (for example, ancestor veneration) are also practised.
3.14 The Law on Belief and Religion came into effect on 1 January 2018. It established a role for the state in protecting religious freedoms and established legal personhood for religious groups. It requires such groups to register with the Government, and religious activities, including routine worship, festivals or conferences, to be registered. Activities can be disallowed on national security or morality grounds. The following sections focus on the day-to-day experiences of religious groups since the law came into effect.
3.15 A key distinction is between registered and unregistered faith groups. After the Vietnam War and the establishment of the unified Socialist Republic, the state created official religious groups and, since then, further groups have become registered. Registered groups worship with limited or no Government interference; those that are not registered may be pressured by Government to join the registered group. Among unregistered groups a further distinction can be made between those groups that have some (perceived) political or foreign agenda and those that do not. Different people of different religions in different areas will also have different experiences, depending on local authorities. Those in cities are less likely to experience official interference.
3.16 The Government recognises 38 religious organisations linked to 16 religious traditions, including Buddhism, Islam and Catholicism. Protestantism is broadly recognised and some international Christian organisations such as Seventh-day Adventists and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) are specifically recognised. Distinct denominations and new sects of any religion must individually register.
3.17 The extent of difficulty that a religious group could expect to face from authorities (for example, refusal of registration, questioning or disruption of activities) can depend on where they are located. Many claims of Government interference are at the hands of local and provincial authorities rather than national authorities. Attitudes and policies can differ between authorities.
3.18 Many incidents relate to religious groups that are politically active in local land or environmental disputes. It can be difficult to distinguish between religious and political claims. The distinction is not necessarily apparent in the everyday experiences of religious adherents or the authorities, either or both of whom may see religious activity as inherently political.
3.19 There are several high-profile examples of religious figures who have advocated for religious freedom and been imprisoned. Such cases are fewer in recent years but those who have been arrested and imprisoned in the past might still be under surveillance by authorities or summoned for regular interrogation. DFAT understands this is generally limited to questioning and surveillance and not violence.
3.20 Pew Research conducted a study in 2016 of global restrictions on religion that included analysis of ‘social hostility’ against people of different religions. That report placed Vietnam as one of the countries with the lowest levels of social hostility, along with other East Asian countries. Several in-country sources told DFAT that religious intolerance between people of different faiths is not an everyday problem in Vietnam.
3.21 DFAT assesses that adherents of officially recognised religious groups are generally able to practise their faith with minimal interference from national authorities, but the situation differs from place to place. Those in large cities are particularly free to practise. Adherents associated with unregistered religious groups generally face more restrictions, which vary depending on region, ethnicity, and any perceived or actual involvement in religious freedom advocacy or political activism.
Catholics
3.22 While Catholics reside in most districts, provinces and cities, the highest concentration is in central Vietnam (Nghe An, Ha Tinh and Quang Binh Provinces). In-country sources report that Catholics are generally able to practise freely at registered churches, particularly in areas with larger Catholic populations.
3.23 The Catholic Church is, by definition, united and can deal with the Government at a national level across Vietnam. Provincial authorities might also have relationships at the diocesan level; sometimes local relationships are better than the national level relationship. In general, relationships between the Government and the Church are cordial. Individual parishes need to be registered.
3.24 Most Catholics worship in churches as part of parishes. Some communities, particularly outside of cities, worship in homes of believers. These activities may be limited by authorities in some cases, but this differs from place to place. In general, Catholics in cities worship freely in churches.
3.25 Some Catholic communities are growing in size with evangelism or welfare efforts. This can occur especially where the local Catholic communities have good relationships with the Government. Some sources report that Catholic missionaries and officials have had difficulty reaching more remote parts of the country in recent years, which might be related to COVID-19 restrictions. Written materials, such as newsletters, websites and social media materials exist, but their maintenance, distribution and promotion do not appear to be a priority for Catholic leaders.
3.26 There have been Catholic political movements that attract negative attention from authorities. The distinction between faith and politics can be difficult to draw. Examples include where Catholics are involved in political, human rights or environmental movements. For example, priests that are involved in those movements may be restricted from public ministry or given a far-away parish assignment. Participation in non-religious activities differs from diocese to diocese and parish to parish.
3.27 The ‘Red Flag Association’, a militant pro-Government movement allegedly under the direction of local governments, was reported to have disbanded in 2018. Red Flag Association activity included protests outside Catholic churches. In-country sources told DFAT that these protests have not occurred in the last two years and that such activity is now more likely to be online.
3.28 Land disputes have been reported, including the seizure of Catholic land and buildings. A particularly prominent example occurred in 2019 when a number of homes and a Catholic church were demolished and the land sold. Appropriated land might be sold to the private sector for development. Conversely, much of the land that was seized from the Church in the aftermath of the Vietnam War has been returned over decades. That process continues, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, reportedly in return for cooperation of the Church with authorities during the pandemic.
3.29 Church officials do not have official relationships with the Catholic Church overseas (except perhaps the Vatican), but in-country sources told DFAT that individual Catholics or communities have relationships with the diaspora overseas, including in Australia, and these relationships are generally unhindered.
3.30 In-country sources told DFAT Catholics generally do not experience societal discrimination. Such discrimination cannot be ruled out, but DFAT understands from in-country sources that there is not a pattern of such discrimination.
3.31 DFAT assesses that Catholics who belong to registered churches and are not politically active face a low risk of official harassment. In-country sources told DFAT that, in general, Catholics are able to worship freely and receive sacraments such as the Eucharist, Reconciliation (confession) and Confirmation. Some Catholics in remote areas have trouble accessing a priest who may not be able to travel to remote areas, whether because authorities will not allow it or because of the remoteness. Catholics who are perceived to challenge the authority or interests of the CPV and its policies, particularly through political activism, face a moderate risk of official discrimination from authorities or their proxies, which may include arrest or violence.
Political opinion (actual or imputed)
3.49 Vietnam is a one-party state and opposition parties are effectively illegal. Threats to CPV legitimacy are seen as threats to the state and are not tolerated…
3.52 The right to assembly is constitutionally protected but, in practice, that right is subject to national security provisions of the Penal Code that prohibit ‘establishing or joining an organisation that [is] against the People’s Government’ (article 109), ‘making, storing or spreading information … opposing the State’ (article 117) and ‘abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the state’ (article 331). These laws effectively outlaw protests that the Government finds sensitive. Official approval is required to protest, which is routinely denied for sensitive topics. Protests that are allowed are subject to close police monitoring.
3.57 It is difficult to make an overall assessment of risks to activists as there are no clear patterns to determine who will be arrested or when. Those who publicly criticise the Government face a moderate risk of official discrimination regardless of what they are protesting. Those who organise protests are more likely to face discrimination, but the possibility of a low-level activist being arrested cannot be discounted.
3.64 It is difficult to give an overall assessment of the risk to online activists, given that Government crackdowns have been observed in relation to a wide range of issues at different times and against different kinds of people. DFAT assesses that online activists face a moderate risk of official discrimination. A repeated pattern of online activity would generally, but not always, attract the attention of authorities.
Exit and entry procedures
5.25 Article 23 of the Constitution allows citizens to ‘freely travel abroad and return home from abroad in accordance with the provisions of the law’. In practice, the Government imposes limits on entry and exit for political activists and Government critics. This is achieved by refusing to issue passports or laying criminal charges to prevent travel, and is sometimes used against the families of persons of interest.
Conditions for returnees
5.29 Articles 120 and 121 of the Penal Code prohibit ‘organising, coercing [or] instigating illegal emigration for the purpose of opposing the People’s Government’ and describes penalties of between three and 20 years’ prison for both organiser and individual émigrés. DFAT is not aware of any cases where these provisions have been used against failed asylum seekers returned from Australia.
5.30 In-country sources report that all individuals involved in people smuggling operations, whether as organisers or travellers, are typically held by authorities for questioning to determine their involvement in operations. Sources have described cases where people have been detained for multiple days or recalled for further questioning. DFAT understands that would-be migrants who have employed the services of people smugglers at worst only face an administrative fine, including in cases of multiple illegal departures.
5.31 DFAT understands that authorities occasionally question returnees from Australia upon their arrival in Vietnam. The interview process generally takes between one to two hours and focuses on obtaining information about the facilitation of any illegal movement on their part. DFAT is not aware of any cases in which returnees from Australia have been held overnight for this purpose.
5.32 Returnees, including failed asylum seekers, labour migrants and trafficking victims, typically face a range of difficulties upon return. These include unemployment or underemployment, and challenges accessing social services, particularly in cases where household registration has ceased. In addition, trafficking victims face social stigma and discrimination, and may experience difficulty in accessing appropriate trauma counselling services outside of large cities. Returnees may be offered assistance by NGOs, but this may be more available to victims of trafficking rather than failed asylum applicants.
5.34 Being a failed asylum seeker is not generally stigmatised. Migration, particularly internal migration, has been a feature of Vietnamese lives for decades, is very common and is even encouraged by the Government. DFAT is not aware of cases of returnees being denied citizenship.
5.35 DFAT assesses that most people who have been subject to people smuggling are seen by the Government as victims, not criminals. Those who use their time overseas to publicly oppose the Government, or who are wanted for similar actions domestically, would be treated in accordance with the procedures set out in Political Opinion (Actual or imputed) and the laws related to illegal emigration might apply to those people. This does not apply to the majority of returning Vietnamese, including those who have departed to seek asylum. This assessment applies to those who have sought asylum in Australia and not to ethnic minorities who have fled by land to neighbouring countries who may be returned from those countries.
Department of Home Affairs Common Claims Vietnam 25 October 2022
(references at the end of Attachment B)
Religion
Religion Authorities permit religious activity while retaining control over religious organisations through registration and oversight. Diplomatic sources informed a UK Home Office Fact Finding Mission to Vietnam that there is no ideological campaign against religion in Vietnam.1 Rather, the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) is suspicious of any organised group – including religious ones – that may challenge its authority, and therefore seeks to control them.2 Credible sources indicate that religious organisations who comply with mandated registration requirements (see paragraph below) generally operate with little state interference as do some religious organisations who do not comply with registration requirements.3 Laws even exist which provide a separate process for unregistered, unrecognized religious groups to receive permission for specific religious activities.4 Interference with, or suppression of, religious organisations or individuals tends to occur where authorities perceive they challenge the CPV’s authority, interests or policies, particularly through political activism.5 For example, official mistreatment of ethnic minority religious groups – typically in highland areas – is generally unconnected with the religious aspects of the group or individuals and more due to involvement in political issues (land or environment protests) or advocacy of democracy.6
Religious practice is regulated by law and official oversight, and in some instances restricted. On 1 January 2018, a new Law on Belief and Religion (LBR), accompanied by Decree No162/2017/ND-CP Guidelines for Implementation of the Law on Religion and Folk Belief,7 came into effect.8 The LBR requires religious groups to register with authorities and obtain official approval for their activities.9 Not all groups have chosen to or been able to register their organisations; some groups were simply denied registration or had their request to register ignored by authorities.10 While some religious groups noted cooperation from authorities in the registration process – including in the northern provinces – others noted local authorities hindered their efforts to register.11 On the whole, central authorities have actively sought to train local officials to correctly implement the LBR and have established an online portal to help religious organisations expedite the registration process.12 The 2018 Law on Belief and Religion has had mixed consequences for registered and unregistered religious groups. For some already registered groups the LBR has provided clarity about which activities are permitted with a number able to obtain permission for activities previously disallowed.13 These groups tend to be larger and well-established, with good relations with authorities.14 The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) also reported in 2019 that some interlocutors indicated to them that authorities had generally become more tolerant of religion, with state officials prominently praising the role of religious organizations in promoting social welfare.15 The LBR also permits religious organizations to participate in education, vocational training, healthcare and social services, previously curtailed.16
This involvement has been encouraged by authorities and was evident in religious group member involvement in COVID-19 community support including funding contributions and field hospital volunteer work.17 However, religious groups which choose not to register with the authorities for reasons of conscience, or have had their application for registration rejected or ignored according to some reports experience increased repression under the new law.18 In November 2021, an implementing decree for the 2018 LBR was considered by the GCRA (General Committee for Religious Affairs) and was said to have shortcomings, although these were not specified.19 Two draft decrees were circulated for comment in June 2022 and reportedly raised concerns amongst religious leaders.20
The government recognises a wide range of religious groups. While reports vary, the government recognises between 38 and 43 religious organisations and one dharma practice, which are affiliated with 15 distinct religious traditions.21 These comprise Buddhism, Islam, Baha’i, Catholicism, Protestantism, Hoa Hao Buddhism, Cao Dai, Buu Son Ky Huong, Tinh Do Cu Si Phat Hoi, Tu An Hieu Nghia, Phat Duong Nam Tong Minh Su Dao, Minh Ly Dao Tam Tong Mieu, Cham Brahmanism Hieu Nghia Ta Lon Buddhism and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.22 The government only recognizes the state-run Buddhist Sangha of Vietnam.23 Catholic groups – along with Protestants, Muslims, Baha’i and Buddhist groups – are allowed to provide religious education to adherents in their own facilities, and religious leaders noted increased enrolment in these education programs in recent years.24
Specific to religion among ethnic minority groups, Vietnamese officials advised the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in January 2021 that the Central Highlands comprises 500,000 Protestant followers and the Northern mountainous region some 250,000 Protestant believers (mainly from the Hmong ethnic group), across some 1,600 groups, more than 900 of which have been registered by local authorities.25 The Ministry of Public Security estimated there were approximately 70 Protestant groups with nearly 200,000 members operating outside of the legal framework mandated by the LBR.26
The degree to which Vietnamese people can freely practice religion varies widely; urban groups tend to enjoy better treatment than rural ones. Implementation of the LBR varies significantly across provinces,27 and members of the same group may be treated differently in various locations depending on relationships with local authorities.28 Credible sources note that conditions for religious groups tend to be better in urban centres than rural settings.29 According to the USDOS, religious leaders in urban areas and among ethnic-majority Kinh adherents reported the ability to practice without significant restrictions, so long as they acted transparently and did not impede official oversight. This remained true for both officially registered and unregistered religious groups.30 Unregistered and/or ethnic minority religious groups in remote and rural areas by contrast are on occasion subject to ongoing harassment, disruption of services, arbitrary detention and other violations. 31 Unlike their unregistered neighbours, recognised religious denominations in highlands areas have reported rapid growth and generally fewer problems with officials.32 Some reports have noted instances of progress in the relationship between authorities and ethno-religious minorities. In August 2020, for example, local authorities in Lam Dong Province announced over USD3 million in funding to help displaced Hmong Christian households to permanently resettle, including through the provision of a medical clinic and community centre.33
Repression, violence and harassment of religious activities outside state-approved religious groups occurs. The Vietnamese government is suspicious of any organised group that may challenge its authority, and continues to closely monitor and disrupt the activities of unrecognised branches of various religious groups.34 Religious groups report that hindrance or suppression of religious groups by local or provincial authorities,35 can sometimes occur through the mobilization of locals, thugs or cadres by the government.36 Violations have included as well as harassment, disruption of services, arbitrary detention,37 intimidation and intrusive monitoring, arrest, imprisonment and torture,38 physical assault, banishment, detention, imprisonment, and forced renunciation of faith,39 . DFAT most recently assesses that those ‘associated with unregistered religious groups generally face more restrictions, which vary depending on region, ethnicity, and any perceived or actual involvement in religious freedom advocacy or political activism.’40
Religious freedom has improved in recent years. The USDOS has reported that religious leaders countrywide had noted improving conditions compared with prior years, highlighting better relations between unregistered religious groups and local authorities with a reduction in aggressive forms of harassment.41 Members of recognized groups or those with certificates of registration said they were generally more able to practice their beliefs with less government interference.42 House churches have also been able to operate drug rehabilitation services and some Protestant churches co-operated to provide food and essentials to people during the COVID-19 pandemic.43
Religious adherence per se does not appear to compromise economic opportunities. Most representatives of religious groups continue to report anecdotally that adherence to a registered religious group generally did not seriously disadvantage individuals in nongovernmental, civil, economic, and secular life, but that adherence to an unregistered group was more disadvantageous.44 Religious leaders said that actual religious belief was not a cause of official discrimination, but the implication of being affiliated with any type of extralegal group could attract additional scrutiny from authorities.45 Practitioners of various registered religious groups hold local and provincial government positions and in the National Assembly.46
Land continues to be a flashpoint for religious organisation and state relations. Provincial and local authorities exercise control over land belonging to individuals and religious organizations in the name of social and economic development projects.47 Authorities do not hinder projects that require the revocation of land rights and demolition of properties of religious organizations or individuals.48 Authorities reportedly fail to intervene effectively in many land disputes that involve religious organizations or believers, and in most of these cases, the religious organizations or believers were unsuccessful in retaining land use rights.49 Such actions resulted in land disputes involving both registered and unregistered religious organizations.50
Treatment of failed asylum seekers
Most individuals who depart Vietnam illegally, for the purpose of seeking asylum, are unlikely to be subjected to relevant laws upon return. DFAT is unaware of any cases of relevant legal provisions being used against failed asylum seekers returned from Australia.300 According to DFAT’s 2019 country report for Vietnam, returns to Vietnam are usually done on the understanding that the individuals in question will not face charges as a result of having made an application for protection.301 DFAT’s 2022 Vietnam country report suggests that authorities on occasion question returnees from Australia upon their arrival in Vietnam, with interviews generally taking between one to two hours and conducted to obtain information about the facilitation of any illegal movement on their part.302 DFAT is unaware of any cases in which returnees from Australia have been held overnight for such purposes.303
In 2016, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Australian Department of Home Affairs and Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security which provides a formal framework for the return of Vietnamese nationals ‘with no legal right to enter or remain in Australia, including those intercepted at sea’.304 Individuals who arrived in Australia via people smuggling networks are also unlikely to face criminal sanctions upon return. The government of Vietnam distinguishes between victims and perpetrators of people smuggling and as such views individuals who paid money to organisers of people smuggling operations as victims of people smuggling, not criminally liable.305 All individuals involved in people smuggling operations however, whether as organisers or travellers, are typically held by authorities for questioning to determine their involvement in operations.306 Sources described to DFAT cases where people have been detained for multiple days or recalled for further questioning.307 DFAT understands that would-be migrants who have employed the services of people smugglers at worst only face an administrative fine, including in cases of multiple illegal departures.308 Activists who return to Vietnam may face ongoing monitoring from authorities. According to DFAT the Vietnamese Government imposes limits on entry and exit for political activists and Government critics through refusing to issue passports.309 The UK Home Office understands that activists who return to Vietnam after seeking asylum overseas may face monitoring, with high-level activists facing more monitoring than low-level activists.310 People of particular interest to authorities may be required to have regular conversations or ‘catch ups’ with officials.311 In January 2019, a Radio Free Asia blogger, Truong Duy Nhat, went missing in Thailand amid fears he had been abducted by Vietnamese agents. He later resurfaced in a Hanoi prison and authorities laid official charges in September 2019.312 Two refugees detained in Thailand were visited by Vietnam Embassy staff in August 2022, who unsuccessfully attempted to persuade them to return home.313 Freedom House indicates that activists living outside of Vietnam have had their Facebook accounts suspended for ‘violating the platform’s community standards’, and occasionally have been targets of systematic cyberattacks.314
Relocating or leaving the country
Internal relocation is common, despite the requirement to register in one’s new location. The DFAT country information report states that while police maintain a close watch over relocation, with citizens staying even one night away from their homes required to register with local police, internal relocation is nonetheless common.315 The USDOS states that the household registration system is used to monitor unlawful activity, but that ‘it is less intrusive than in the past’316, and that individuals engaged in or suspected of engaging in unauthorized political activities may be monitored through the registration system more closely.317 DFAT acknowledge that in practice police do not strictly enforce laws regarding residence to the extent that it would prevent internal relocation, particularly from rural to urban areas, and consider it ‘unlikely’ that authorities would refuse a person’s request to register in a new location.318 DFAT considers that those attempting to relocate to the major cities may experience bureaucratic difficulties, but that relocation to such locales is not impossible.319 NGO and academic sources informed a UKHO Fact-Finding Team that household registration is not a barrier to moving around the country and does not prevent free movement.320 Individuals with certain profiles may be prevented from leaving the country.321
References – DHA Common Claims Vietnam 25 October 2022
Religion
1 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.25, 20190917095808
2 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.25, 20190917095808;
3 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 1, 20220603132903;'DFAT Country Information Report - VIETNAM - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, p 14, 20220111094403; 'Country Policy and Information Note - Vietnam: Hoa Hao Buddhism', UK Home Office, February 2020, pp.11, 14, 20200218104508
4 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, Sect II, p. 7, 20220603132903
5 'DFAT Country Information Report - VIETNAM - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, p 14, 20220111094403 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.25, 20190917095808
6 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 09 September 2019, p.26, 20190917095808
7 ‘Decree No162/2017/ND-CP Guidelines for Implementation of the Law on Religion and Folk Belief’, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, December 2017, 20200806155359
8 'Country Update: An Assessment of Vietnam's Law on Belief and Religion', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 21 November 2019, p.1, 20191122090923
9 ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practice for 2020 – Vietnam’, US Department of State, 30 March 2021, S2B, p.24, 20210331114522 (not in 2021 report)
10 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 12, 20220603132903
11 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 1, 20220603132903
12 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, pp. 13, 19, 20220603132903
13 'Freedom of religion or belief since the January 2018 Law on Belief and Religion', Christian Solidarity Worldwide, June 2022, p. 2, 20220901152329
14 Freedom of religion or belief since the January 2018 Law on Belief and Religion', Christian Solidarity Worldwide, June 2022, p. 2, 20220901152329
15 'Country Update: An Assessment of Vietnam's Law on Belief and Religion', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 21 November 2019, p.1, 20191122090923
16Report on Human Rights in Vietnam 2021-2022', Vietnam Human Rights Network, 24 June 2022, p. 47, 20220901160002
17 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 20, 20220603132903
18 Freedom of religion or belief since the January 2018 Law on Belief and Religion', Christian Solidarity Worldwide, June 2022, pp. 2, 4, 20220901152329;
19 'United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Annual Report 2022', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 25 April 2022, p.41, 20220426134255
20 'Draft decrees on religion provoke concern', Christian Solidarity Worldwide, 21 June 2022, 20220902162654
21 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 4, 20220603132903 states ‘38’ groups; 'Report on Human Rights in Vietnam 2019-2020', Vietnam Human Rights Network, 14 May 2020, p.52, 20200521115120 states ‘42’ groups; ‘Combined fifteenth to seventeenth reports submitted by Viet Nam under article 9 of the Convention, due in 2015* (CERD/C/VNM/15-17)’, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 13 January 2021, para.70, p.19, 20210215153650 lists 43 groups belonging to 16 religions.
22 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 5, 20220603132903
23 Report on Human Rights in Vietnam 2021-2022', Vietnam Human Rights Network, 24 June 2022, p. 53, 20220901160002
24 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 22, 20220603132903
25 'Combined fifteenth to seventeenth reports submitted by Viet Nam under article 9 of the Convention, due in 2015* (CERD/C/VNM/15-17)', Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 13 January 2021, para.73, pp.19-20, 20210215153650
26 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 12, 20220603132903
27 'Country Update: An Assessment of Vietnam's Law on Belief and Religion', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 21 November 2019, pp.1,3, 20191122090923
28 'Country Policy and Information Note - Vietnam: Hoa Hao Buddhism', UK Home Office, February 2020, pp.11, 14, 20200218104508; 'DFAT Country Information Report - VIETNAM - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, p. 14, 20220111094403
29 ‘Written statement* submitted by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status’, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, 17 June 2021 , para.3, p.2, 20220117114221; 'USCIRF 2020 Annual Report', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 28 April 2020, p.47, 20200429103634; Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.26, 20190917095808
30 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 15, 20220603132903
31 ‘Written statement* submitted by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status’, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, 17 June 2021 , para.3, p.2, 20220117114221; 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.3.15, p.14, 20220111094403
32 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 15, 20220603132903
33 ‘Hopes and fears for religious freedom in Vietnam’, The Hill 20, August 2020, 20200821153509
34 Report on Human Rights in Vietnam 2021-2022', Vietnam Human Rights Network, 24 June 2022, p. 53ff, 20220901160002; 'Human Rights Watch World Report 2022', Human Rights Watch (HRW), 13 January 2022, p. 747, 20220114100636; 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.25, 20190917095808
35 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 1, 20220603132903
36 ‘Vietnam: General Briefing’, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, March 2021, p.1, 20220117150216; ‘Thien An Abbey – 45 Years Under The Government’s Fist’, The Vietnamese, 6 October 2020, 20201008153405
37 ‘Written statement* submitted by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status’, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, 17 June 2021 , para.3, p.2, 20220117114221
38 ‘Vietnam: General Briefing’, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, March 2021, p.1, 20220117150216
39 'United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Annual Report 2022', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 25 April 2022, p.40, 20220426134255
40 'DFAT Country Information Report - VIETNAM - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, p. 14, 20220111094403
41 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 1, 20220603132903
42 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 1, 20220603132903
43 'DFAT Country Information Report - VIETNAM - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, p. 16, 20220111094403
44 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 21, 20220603132903
45 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 21, 20220603132903
46 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 21, 20220603132903
47 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 17, 20220603132903
48 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 17, 20220603132903
49 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 17, 20220603132903; 'Religious Freedom in the World Report 2021 Vietnam', Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), 20 April 2021, p. 4, 20220318120233
50 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 17, 20220603132903
Treatment of failed asylum seekers
300 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.29, p.33, 20220111094403
301 'DFAT Country Information Report Vietnam', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 13 December 2019, p.43, 20191213145121
302 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.31, p.33, 20220111094403
303 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.29, p.33, 20220111094403
304 'DFAT Country Information Report Vietnam', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 13 December 2019, p.43, 20191213145121
305 'DFAT Country Information Report Vietnam', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 13 December 2019, p. 44, 20191213145121
306 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.30, p.33, 20220111094403
307 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.30, p.33, 20220111094403
308 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.30, p.33, 20220111094403
309 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.25, p.32, 20220111094403
310 ‘Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019’, UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.31, 20190917095808
311 ‘Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019’, UK Home Office, 09 September 2019, p.31, 20190917095808
312 '10 Most Censored Countries', Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), New York, 10 September 2019, 20190910171006; ''Unholy alliance'? Southeast Asian authorities accused of trading exiled activists', Reuters, 21 June 2019, 20190624112000; 'RFA Blogger Formally Indicted in Vietnam for ‘Abuse of Power’', Radio Free Asia (RFA), 17 September 2019, 20190918084723
313 'Vietnamese refugees held in Thailand say they fear being forced home', Radio Free Asia (RFA), 12 August 2022, 20220815111023
314 'Freedom on the Net 2022 - Vietnam', Freedom House, 18 October 2022, B2, C8, 20221020141926
Relocating or leaving the country
315 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.18, p.31, 20220111094403
316 2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Vietnam', US Department of State, 12 April 2022, Section 1f, p. 17, 20220413115447
317 '2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Vietnam', US Department of State, 12 April 2022, Section 1f, p. 17, 20220413115447
318 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.19, p.31, 20220111094403
319 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, paras.5.21-5.22, pp.31-32, 20220111094403
320 ‘Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019’, UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, para.4.14, p.16, 20190917095808
321 'Vietnam rights lawyer barred from leaving country', Radio Free Asia (RFA), 28 September 2022, 20220929133259; 2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Vietnam', US Department of State, 12 April 2022, s 2d, p. 28, 20220413115447
0
10
0