2105137 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a Safe Haven Enterprise visa by a Vietnamese national. The applicant arrived in Australia in April 2013 and subsequently applied for a protection visa. After a series of applications, notifications, and a failure to attend a scheduled interview, a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the applicant a protection visa on 21 April 2021. The applicant's claims for leaving Vietnam, as stated in an arrival interview on 12 May 2013, were that it was difficult and poor, and he was seeking something better to support his parents, with no other reasons for departure. He also stated no involvement with political groups or protests against the government. The decision under review was affirmed by the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically under section 36(2)(a) of the Act, or alternatively, the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia to Vietnam, the applicant would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's stated reasons for leaving Vietnam, his claimed lack of political or religious persecution, and relevant country information.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the protection visa. It noted that the applicant's initial stated reason for leaving Vietnam was economic hardship and the desire to support his parents, and he denied any political or religious persecution. The Tribunal also considered the provisions for complementary protection, which require a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal. While the case text does not detail the specific findings regarding significant harm or the application of country information, it indicates that the Tribunal took into account Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, and Complementary Protection Guidelines. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.