2018327 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Catholic Christian from Vietnam, sought a Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (SHEV) after arriving in Australia in 2013. The dispute concerned whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically alleging persecution due to his religious beliefs and activities in Vietnam. The applicant claimed he was detained, beaten, and threatened by Vietnamese authorities for his involvement in a youth group campaigning for religious freedom and human rights, and that his grandparents' land was appropriated without compensation. The case was before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT).

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) due to a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of religion, or whether he met the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Vietnam. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of country information and relevant guidelines, including the Refugee Law Guidelines and Complementary Protection Guidelines.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's credibility and the available country information. It noted that the applicant's claims were vague and inconsistent, and his explanations were unsatisfactory. The Tribunal also had regard to country information which indicated a "very low risk profile" for Vietnam. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a). Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa), as there were no substantial grounds to believe he would suffer significant harm upon return.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.