2112369 (Refugee)

This matter concerns an application for review of a decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse the applicant, a citizen of Vietnam, a Protection XA subclass 866 Visa. The applicant arrived in Australia in May 2015 on a student visa and has remained onshore since, with his student visa being cancelled in May 2019. He subsequently applied for a protection visa, which was refused by the delegate on 8 September 2021. The applicant sought merits review of this decision before the Tribunal.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had established a well-founded fear of persecution for a convention reason, or whether he was owed complementary protection, should he be returned to Vietnam. Specifically, the Tribunal was required to assess the credibility and substance of the applicant's claims that he had engaged in secret meetings to analyse totalitarian rule, had experienced difficulties with local police during a passport renewal, and that these factors would place him at risk of interrogation, torture, arrest, or indefinite detention upon return to Vietnam, rendering him unable to relocate within the country.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the lack of credible evidence to support the applicant's claims. It noted that the applicant's assertions regarding secret meetings were vague and unsubstantiated, and that country information did not indicate such activities would attract the attention of Vietnamese authorities or constitute political activism. Similarly, the Tribunal found the account of police difficulties during passport renewal to be within the bounds of normal administrative practice, with no credible evidence of arbitrary arrest or being a person of interest to the authorities. The Tribunal also considered country information regarding household registration and internal relocation, concluding that the applicant had not demonstrated he would face any greater restrictions than the general population. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory elements for a protection visa or complementary protection.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the grant of a protection visa.