2107887 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an appeal against a decision of the Refugee Tribunal affirming the refusal to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, a national of Vietnam, claimed he feared persecution upon return due to his involvement in protesting land expropriation and the subsequent beating and detention he and his father experienced. He also alleged he was unable to reside in other provinces as authorities traced him and instructed locals to harm him.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant qualified for a protection visa as a refugee, or alternatively, on complementary protection grounds. This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion or membership of a particular social group, or if there was a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Vietnam. The court also considered the applicant's claims in light of the evidence presented at the Tribunal hearing, which diverged in material respects from his initial application.

The court found that the applicant's claims were not substantiated by the evidence. Specifically, the applicant's account of his parents owning farmland and being dispossessed was contradicted by his evidence that farmland in Vietnam is state-owned. Furthermore, he did not suggest his father continued to face harm after 2013, nor did he claim to have attempted to reside in other provinces to avoid persecution. Consequently, the court concluded that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion or membership of a particular social group. The court also found no basis for complementary protection, as the applicant had not demonstrated a real risk of significant harm upon return to Vietnam.

Accordingly, the Tribunal's decision to affirm the refusal of the protection visa was upheld.