2101313 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of the decision not to grant a protection visa. The applicant had declined a hearing invitation and requested a Ministerial referral, but the Tribunal found there was insufficient information and evidence to substantiate such a referral. The applicant claimed to be in a de facto relationship with an Australian citizen and raised concerns about pollution in Vietnam, but ultimately did not demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons outlined in section 5J of the Act, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Vietnam, the applicant would suffer significant harm under the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant qualified as a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that it was the applicant's responsibility to provide sufficient particulars and evidence to establish their claim, as stipulated by section 5AAA(2) of the Act. Despite acknowledging country information regarding pollution and government regulation, the Tribunal found the applicant's claims to be general and sparse, lacking any explanation or evidence linking them to a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The applicant also stated they had not experienced harm in Vietnam. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented to suggest the applicant was a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c) of the Act.