2102170 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a protection visa made by a woman from Vietnam. The applicant claimed that she and her husband were practicing Catholics who supported a prominent activist priest, Father A. They alleged that they were members of an underground Catholic organisation and that Vietnamese authorities had become aware of their involvement, leading to their families being warned not to return to Vietnam for fear of arrest, imprisonment, and torture. The applicant had previously made claims to the Department, which were refused, and she lodged a review application with the Tribunal without providing further information.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant faced a real chance of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Vietnam, as contemplated by sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicant's fear of persecution for reasons of religion and membership of a particular social group was well-founded, and whether any potential harm constituted "significant harm" as defined by the Act. The Tribunal was also required to consider the applicant's engagement with the process, including her failure to attend a scheduled hearing.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa. The applicant failed to attend the first scheduled hearing, and despite a subsequent request to have her case reheard after claiming she missed the email notification due to it being in her spam folder, the Tribunal found a lack of engagement and provision of further details. The Tribunal noted that the applicant did not provide any additional information beyond her initial claims, which had already been considered and rejected by the delegate. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa.