2119781 (Refugee) - [2023] AATA 1070

2119781 (Refugee) [2023] AATA 1070 (24 January 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW:                  Application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa subclass XE-790 Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (‘SHEV’) under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’)
APPLICANT’S REPRESENTATIVE:        Ms Anh Tran, solicitor
CASE NUMBER:  2119781
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                   Vietnam
MEMBER:Kate Chapple
DATE:24 January 2023
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act.

Statement made on 24 January 2023 at 7:44am
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Vietnam – religion – conversion to Christianity in Australia – child of army officer and communist party member – traditional, strict, non-religious upbringing – bullied and assaulted – profile because of father’s position and unlawful departure – activities in Australia not for purpose of strengthening claim – credible evidence – country information – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5J(6), 36(2)(a), 46A, 91K
CASES
DBB16 v MIBP (2018) 260 FCR 447
NBKT v MIMA (2006) 156 FCR 419
SZKHD v MIAC [2008] FCA 112
SZKOZ v MIAC [2007] FCA 1798
SZMPJ v MIAC [2008] FMCA 1640
SZMZA v MIAC (No 2) [2008] FMCA 1418
SZOZT v MIAC [2011] FCA 1245
SZRWG v MIAC [2013] FMCA 53
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
OVERVIEW

The applicant, a Vietnamese woman aged [Age 1], grew up with her parents and two [siblings] in Vinh city, Vietnam. Her father has been a professional [Occupation 1] with the Vietnamese People’s Army for more than [Number 1] years and a member of the Vietnamese Communist Party; her mother, [an Occupation 2]. The applicant’s parents are very traditional and her upbringing was strict. They rejected religious faith, and engaged only in ancestral worship. She had a troubled relationship with her parents and [siblings] growing up.
The applicant completed to year [Number 2] of schooling in Vietnam; she loved learning and did well at school, however experienced bullying and physical assaults by fellow students. On her way home from school one day she was assaulted and raped, the impact of which has been profound and lasting for her.
At [Age 2], the applicant left home, moved to a nearby tourist town and got a job in a [Workplace]. She was sexually assaulted by some patrons, and fled by bus to Vung Tau where she made contact with people who offered to arrange her boat passage to Australia.
According to departmental records, the applicant arrived in Australia by sea at [Location] [in] April 2013. She was placed in immigration detention on arrival, then on her release sometime later in 2013 or early 2014, she was granted a temporary safe haven humanitarian stay visa.
The Minister subsequently intervened, lifting the s 46A bar, and allowing the applicant to lodge an application for a SHEV, which she did on 12 October 2015. The Department made a decision to refuse the SHEV on 18 October 2016. At the time, the applicant was considered under Australian law to be an ‘unauthorised maritime arrival’, which gave her a fast track right of review with the Independent Assessment Authority (IAA). The IAA affirmed the refusal decision on 2 March 2017.
On 6 August 2018, the Full Federal Court handed down the judgment in DBB16 v MIBP (2018) 260 FCR 447. As a result, the applicant was determined not to be an ‘unauthorised maritime arrival’ due to her manner of arrival, and her SHEV application and IAA refusal decision were therefore invalid.
The Minister intervened again, lifting the s 91K bar, and allowing the applicant to lodge a second SHEV application, which she did on 20 October 2020. The applicant attended a phone interview with the Department in relation to the second SHEV application on 26 October 2021.
On 14 December 2021, the Minister’s delegate made a decision to refuse to grant the applicant a SHEV.
On 22 December 2021, the applicant made an application to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision.
Since being in Australia, the applicant has committed to the Catholic faith, completed her schooling at a Catholic secondary school, and joined her local Catholic church community. She has completed certificate qualifications, is working full-time, and strives to do further study. She is soon to marry a Catholic man who came from Vietnam in similar circumstances to her own. She fears that if she returns to Vietnam, she will be targeted and harmed by the Vietnamese authorities for illegally departing the country and for her practice of the Catholic faith, particularly so due her father’s position with the Army and his membership of the Vietnamese Community Party, and the shame and penalty that she believes her activities and religious beliefs would bring to her father in his professional work.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
Protection visa applications and related material
Applicant’s SHEV application dated 12 October 2015.
Applicant’s supporting statement dated 18 September 2015.
Vietnamese People’s Army identification card relating to the applicant’s father (certified English translation).
Applicant’s Baptism, Confirmation and First Holy Communion Certificate issued by [Church 1] [in] April 2014.
Letter from the Assistant Parish Priest at [Church 1] dated 21 September 2015 attesting to the applicant’s faith commitment, church activities, and good character.
Letter from the Assistant Principal at [School 1], Brisbane dated 12 October 2015 attesting to the applicant’s faith and social justice activities, her academic commitment, and her good character.
Applicant’s SHEV application dated 20 October 2020.
Applicant’s supporting statement dated 19 October 2020.
Letter from the Chaplain of [Church group] dated 20 October 2021 attesting to her faith commitment and good character.
Applicant’s post-interview statement dated 1 November 2021.
Other departmental records:
21.1.Decision records.
21.2.Applicant’s interview audio files.
21.3.Case file.
21.4.Internal records relating to the applicant.
Application for review
A copy of the refusal decision relating to the applicant’s second SHEV application was lodged with her application for review.
The Tribunal wrote to the applicant’s representative inviting the applicant to attend a hearing on 20 January 2023 and to provide pre-hearing submissions.
Prior to the hearing, the applicant’s representative provided to the Tribunal:
24.1.Confirmation that the applicant intended to participate in the hearing with the assistance of her representative.
24.2.Representative’s submission dated 18 January 2023.
The Hearing
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal at a hearing conducted in person on 20 January 2023, with the assistance of an interpreter (in person) in the Vietnamese and English languages. The applicant spoke in Vietnamese and, from time to time, in English. The applicant’s representative was present at the hearing via telephone.
The applicant gave the following evidence:
26.1.The applicant was born in [Year 1] in Vinh city, Nghe An province, Vietnam and grew up there with her parents and [siblings], now aged [Age 3] and [Age 4].
26.2.The applicant’s father joined the Vietnamese People’s Army more than [Number 1] years ago. He was born in [Year 2]. He is a professional or career [Occupation 1]; she thinks at the rank of [Rank], but isn’t sure. She described his insignia as having [Description]. He was trained in the army; when the applicant was a child, he was working in [Section 1], then later moved to [Section 2]. She thinks the retirement age is 65, but she’s not sure. Her father is also a member of the Vietnamese Communist Party; the applicant thinks this is required of anyone working for the military or the government. She doesn’t know if he participated in Communist Party activities beyond his work as she was still very young in Vietnam. The applicant isn’t aware of any others on her father’s side who are members of the Communist Party. The applicant also isn’t aware if her father has experienced any problems with the Vietnamese authorities as part of his work because he didn’t discuss those sorts of things with his children.
26.3.The applicant’s mother has always been [an Occupation 2]. She doesn’t know whether her mother is a member of the Communist Party. Her mother’s older brother however works for the Communist Party controlled [Work sector] and is a member of the party.
26.4.The applicant and her [siblings] were in the Youth League. In her experience, that’s what kids did. The if you go on to work for the military or the government, you join the Communist Party. The applicant’s younger [sibling] has just completed year [Number 3]; [s/he] doesn’t know what [s/he]’ll do next. He older [sibling] helps their mother at the [Workplace].
26.5.The applicant’s parents rejected religion, but did engage in ancestor worship at temples. As a child, she followed what her parents did.
26.6.The applicant’s parents are very traditional and her upbringing was strict. She was not close to her parents or [siblings] growing up; she felt sad and lonely, and was left to do everything herself.
26.7.The applicant completed primary and junior secondary studies to year [Number 2] at schools nearby home on the outskirts of Vinh city. The applicant loved learning and did well at school, however she did not have many friends and was bullied. Most of the time, she was in arguments that would sometime escalate to physical fighting, and on some occasions she was assaulted. There was a group of students who were Catholic; they knew her father was with the Army and the Communist Party, and that the government was opposed to Catholics. She also thinks the fighting was due to competition and jealousy among the students about marks.
26.8.One afternoon, on her way home from school, the applicant was raped. It caused her significant trauma and anguish at the time and in the years since. She didn’t tell her parents or the police; she was too scared of the consequences for her father in his job and the shame it would bring to her parents. She was also too scared to return to school. She needed to get away. She rang her aunt, her mother’s sister, who she has always been close to, and called ‘mum’. She told her aunt generally about what had been going on at school, but not about the rape. Her aunt was supportive and gave her some money. She asked her aunt not to tell her parents, but she expected that eventually she would.
26.9.The applicant went to [Town], a tourist town by the beach not far from Vinh city. She lied to her parents, telling them she was going to a friend’s house to study. She got a job in a [Workplace], and stayed for a few months until she was sexually assaulted by some of the patrons. She then fled by bus to Vung Tau because it was much further away from home and she thought it would be safer.
26.10.In Vung Tau, the applicant did some casual work for a short time. She met people who asked her if she’d like to go to Australia. She felt she had nothing to lose, so agreed to go. The people she’d met arranged her boat passage and her aunt paid the money. The applicant had never been issued a Vietnamese passport.
26.11.The applicant doesn’t know how long the boat passage took, there were a lot of people on board, everyone was looking after themselves; she was in a corner by herself, and she was very ill with sea sickness for most of the journey. The applicant had no idea what would happen when she got to Australia; she just wanted to go to a country where she would be protected, that’s all she was thinking about.
26.12.The applicant arrived in [City] in April 2013 and went into immigration detention. She rang her parents from the detention centre. It was the first time she’d had contact with her parents since she left home. She was very emotional on the phone call because she realised how far away she was from her parents and she was turning over a new leaf in a place where she knew no one and no one knew her. She was also very glad she hadn’t perished at sea. Her father really wanted her to return home, and she could have got help from the IOM to do that, but she didn’t want to; she had bet her life to get here and she wasn’t going back.
26.13.In the [detention centre], around 90% of the detainees were Catholic, and a priest conducted regular masses. She initially went because that’s what everyone did and she wanted to learn English. In time however, she found that it calmed her down and started to heal her.
26.14.After [City], the applicant was flown to Brisbane where she went into a community detention house. One of the girls she lived with was Catholic and she followed what she did; she didn’t want to be left out, she wanted to be part of the holy communion. She continued learning English at [Suburb 1]. When the applicant’s case manager in community detention was looking for local school options, she discovered that [School 1] in [Brisbane] was offering scholarships. The applicant applied and was successful. She loved her time at [School 1] and is proud of her achievements.
26.15.When the applicant moved to [Suburb 2], she became involved with the local Catholic churches, [Church 1] and the [Church group]. She was baptised, confirmed and took her first holy communion in April 2014. She attended services at least once a week, sang in the choir, and helped with the young children at the community church. Now that she is working full-time, she attends services on weekends.
26.16.Sometime in the last few years, the applicant can’t remember when, on a call to her parents, they told her that the Vietnamese authorities had been inquiring about her whereabouts and had issued a letter requiring them to attend and answer questions. She thinks it may have been related to the Household Registration Book, and updating the records once she’d reached a certain age. Her father told her he bribed the officials and the matter was settled. The applicant has never seen a copy of the letter. Her father wanted to disown her; she didn’t expect that he would send her the letter.
26.17.The applicant still loves her parents despite her troubled relationship with them. She doesn’t talk to them with any regularity; she rings them when she’s missing them or she wants to make them proud about something she has achieved. When she told them about her involvement with the church, they told her off badly, saying she’ll affect the family’s reputation in Vietnam. She last spoke to her parents over the recent Christmas/new year period.
26.18.After the applicant finished secondary school, she worked as [an Occupation 3], [an Occupation 4] for [an Occupation 5], [an Occupation 6], and then, after completing the necessary certificate qualifications, was employed full-time as [an Occupation 7] assistant. She wants to do further study, and maybe one day be [an Occupation 7].
26.19.The applicant is engaged to be married in May this year. She and her partner met in community detention and attended school together; he came to Australia from Vietnam in similar circumstances to the applicant, and is also a Catholic. Neither has any other family in Australia. The applicant’s parents know about the engagement and wedding, and she thinks they are happy for her.
26.20.The applicant believes that if she returns to Vietnam, she will come to the attention of the Vietnamese authorities particularly because of her father’s position. They will target and jail her because she left the country illegally and is returning as a failed asylum seeker. She also believes that practising her Catholic faith will bring shame to her family and be a problem with the authorities because of her father’s position and the government’s opposition to the Catholic faith.
26.21.The Tribunal put the following country information (contained in the DFAT Country Information report for Vietnam dated 11 January 2022) to the applicant and invited her to comment:
26.21.1.DFAT understands that authorities occasionally question returnees from Australia upon their arrival in Vietnam. The interview process generally takes between one to two hours and focuses on obtaining information about the facilitation of any illegal movement. DFAT is not aware of any cases in which returnees from Australia have been held overnight for this purpose.
26.21.2.In response, the applicant said that information from government sources is not necessarily accurate; the reality may be different.
26.21.3.DFAT assesses that Catholics who belong to registered churches and are not politically active face a low risk of official harassment. In-country sources told DFAT that, in general, Catholics are able to worship freely and receive sacraments. Catholics who are perceived to challenge the authority or interests of the CPV and its policies, particularly through political activism, face a moderate risk of official discrimination from authorities or their proxies, which may include arrest or violence.
26.21.4.In response, the applicant said that the government decides whether they’ll brand you a challenger; there’s no defence once you’ve been branded. The applicant said that from her point of view, she will stand up and protect her faith and yet attending mass in Vietnam will make it very difficult for her father in his position as it will draw the attention of authorities. To protect her father and family, she would have to restrict her faith activities. Returning to Vietnam would be to relive her past trauma there. Her Catholic faith has helped her heal, and her hope is that she can settle in Australia.
Representative’s oral submissions
The applicant’s representative submitted that the applicant came to Australia as a minor, her understanding of freedom of speech and religion has been shaped by her time here, and the chance of her objecting to the Vietnam government if she returns to Vietnam would be relatively high, and therefore needs to be assessed as part of the future risk. The applicant would also have to alter her behaviour because of her father’s position.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The Tribunal considers the applicant’s evidence at hearing truthful and credible taking into account the circumstances of her passage to Australia; her young age, absence of close adult support and guidance, and lack of English skills at the time, her subsequent detention, and the significant time that has elapsed between her departure from Vietnam and the Tribunal hearing.
In particular, the Tribunal accepts:
29.1.The applicant is a citizen of Vietnam.
29.2.The applicant is a committed and practising Catholic.
29.3.The applicant’s father is a long-serving professional soldier with the Vietnamese People’s Army and a member of the Vietnamese Communist Party.
29.4.The applicant’s accounts of the rape and sexual assaults perpetrated against her when she was a young teenager in Vietnam, and their profound and lasting impact on her.
29.5.The applicant fears that if she returns to Vietnam, she will be targeted and harmed by the Vietnamese authorities for illegally departing the country and for her Catholicism, particularly so due her father’s position with the Army and his membership of the Vietnamese Community Party, and the shame and penalty that she believes her activities and religious beliefs would bring to her father in his professional work.
The Tribunal considers it is plausible the applicant was bullied and assaulted at school in Vietnam by Catholic students because of her father’s position in the army and membership of the Communist Party, and the Vietnamese government’s opposition to the Catholic faith. However, given the applicant’s subsequent commitment to and practice of the Catholic faith and that she is now beyond school age, if she returns to Vietnam, the Tribunal does not consider there is any risk of this treatment recurring.

The Tribunal considers it is plausible the Vietnamese authorities contacted the applicant’s parents querying the applicant’s whereabouts given that she remained listed in the Household Registration Book and the book may have required updating once she’d reached a certain age.
The Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence that her father told her he had received a letter from authorities summoning the parents for questioning about her whereabouts, and that he had bribed the authorities to avoid questioning. Given the applicant’s troubled relationship with her parents and the circumstances in which she left home, and in the absence of any corroborative evidence, the Tribunal does not afford this evidence any weight.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s sur place claims based on her commitment to and practice of the Catholic faith, being conduct engaged in by the applicant after she arrived in Australia. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that:
33.1.In determining whether an applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution, any conduct engaged in by the applicant in Australia is to be disregarded unless they can demonstrate that the conduct was engaged in otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening their claim to be a refugee.[1]
33.2.People outside their countries of origin may become refugees due to changes in circumstances in their home countries or as a result of their own actions.[2]
33.3.It has been recognised that a person may become a refugee sur place as a result of voluntarily participating in activities which would give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution in his or her country of origin.
33.4.The applicant bears the responsibility or onus of satisfying the Tribunal that the conduct was otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening their refugee claim.[3]
33.5.Where conduct in Australia could strengthen the applicant’s refugee claim, the Tribunal must consider the applicant’s motivation for engaging in the conduct before considering the consequences that may flow from that conduct.[4]
33.6.The conduct must have been engaged in for the sole purpose of strengthening the refugee claim.[5]
[1] s 5J(6) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).
[2] Guide to Refugee Law (updated as at November 2022) at pages 3-16 to 3-22.
[3] NBKT v MIMA (2006) 156 FCR 419 at [89]; SZKOZ v MIAC [2007] FCA 1798 at [28]–[29]; SZKHD v MIAC [2008] FCA 112 at [31]; SZMZA v MIAC (No 2) [2008] FMCA 1418 at [16]–[17] and SZMPJ v MIAC [2008] FMCA 1640 at [25]–[27].
[4] SZOZT v MIAC [2011] FCA 1245; SZRWG v MIAC [2013] FMCA 53.
[5] MIAC v SZJGV (2009) 238 CLR 642 at [13], [59]–[60].
Based on the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal considers that her commitment to and practice of the Catholic faith began in immigration detention in [City] as a [Age 2] year-old who had suffered significant trauma and anguish in Vietnam and during her boat passage to Australia, was without close adult guidance or support in an unfamiliar country and environment, and could not speak or understand English. She attended the Catholic masses in the detention centre because she thought it would help her learn English, however in time, she realised that they brought her a measure of calm and healing. As she was exposed further to the Catholic faith in community detention, then at secondary school, and with her churches in the local community, she became a genuinely committed follower of the faith, and she remains so.
The Tribunal does not consider that the applicant became a Catholic for the purpose of strengthening her protection claims.
The Tribunal notes the following country information (also set out in more detail in Attachment B):
36.1.The Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) is suspicious of any organised group, including religious, that may challenge its authority, and therefore seeks to control them.
36.2.DFAT assesses that, in general, Catholics are able to worship freely and receive sacraments. The distinction between faith and politics can however be difficult to draw. Catholics who are perceived to challenge the authority or interests of the CPV and its policies, particularly through political activism, face a moderate risk of official discrimination from authorities or their proxies, which may include arrest or violence.
36.3.Even within a local area where Catholics are susceptible to persecution (such as the Diocese of Vinh), the level of vulnerability of a given individual to persecution varies from family to family, individual to individual. Indicators include a history of poor relations with government, having been a faith teacher or organiser or member of a parish council or body responsible for parish affairs.
36.4.In June 2022, the Vietnamese government published a draft decree under the Law on Belief and Religion that would tighten control and suppression of, and punishments for, registered religious activities.
36.5.On 2 December 2022, the United States Secretary of State placed Vietnam on the Special Watch List for engaging in or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom.
36.6.DFAT understands that authorities occasionally question returnees from Australia upon their arrival in Vietnam. The interview process generally takes between one to two hours and focuses on obtaining information about the facilitation of any illegal movement on their part. DFAT is not aware of any cases in which returnees from Australia have been held overnight for this purpose.
36.7.Returnees, including failed asylum seekers, typically face a range of difficulties upon their return. These include unemployment or underemployment, and challenges accessing social services, particularly in cases where household registration has ceased.
36.8.Being a failed asylum seeker is not generally stigmatised.
36.9.DFAT assesses that most people who have been subject to people smuggling are seen by the Government as victims, not criminals.
36.10.The Department of Home Affairs website confirms that in February 2014, a routine report released on the Department's website unintentionally enabled access to some personal information about people who were in immigration detention in Australia on 31 January 2014. The report of the Australian Human Rights Commission addresses this data breach.
The Tribunal notes the following further country information:
37.1.The Human Rights Watch report, Vietnam: Events of 2022, states in relation to freedom of religion that: The government restricts religious practice through legislation, registration requirements, and surveillance. Religious groups must get approval from, and register with, the government and operate under government-controlled management boards. While authorities allow government-affiliated churches and pagodas to hold worship services, they ban religious activities that they arbitrarily deem to be contrary to the “national interest,” “public order,” or “national unity,” including many ordinary types of religious functions.
37.2.The Law on Vietnam People’s Army Officers No.16/1999/QH10 provides (inter alia) that:
37.2.1.[Article 1] The officers of the Vietnam People’s Army are cadres of the Communist Party of Vietnam and the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, operating in the military domains and bestowed the rank of company officer, field officer or general officer by the State.
37.2.2.[Article 12 – Criteria of officers] (a) Being politically steadfast, absolutely loyal to the Fatherland and people, the Communist Party of Vietnam and the State of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam; having the spirit of high revolutionary vigilance, being ready to fight, make sacrifice and fulfill all assigned tasks; (b) Having revolutionary virtues; being industrious, thrifty, incorruptible, upright, devoted and impartial; being exemplary in observing the lines and undertakings of the Party as well as policies and laws of the State; promoting democracy, strictly maintaining the army disciplines; respect and unite with people, with comrades-in-arms; being trusted by the mass.
37.2.3.[Article 28] Officers must not do things contrary to laws and/or the army disciplines and things not to be done by State officials and employees as prescribed by law.
37.3.The Law on Professional Servicemen and Women, National Defense Workers and Officials No.98/2015/QH13 provides (inter alia) that:
37.3.1.[Article 4 – Principles of management and employment of professional servicemen etc] 1. Ensure absolute leadership of the Communist Party, supremacy of State president, overall management of the Government and direct command and management of the Minister of National Defense.
37.3.2.[Article 6 – Obligations] (a) Be absolutely faithful to the Fatherland, the People, the Communist Party and the State of Vietnam; (b) Comply strictly with policies of the Party, policies and laws of the State, military disciplines and be ready to complete assigned duties.
37.3.3.[Article 7 – Not allowed to do] 3. Do things in opposition to the law, regulations and disciplines of the People’s Army.
37.3.4.[Article 16 – Military ranks of professional servicemen] 2. Highest ranks of professional servicemen are composed of: (a) Senior lieutenant-colonel (high-ranking); (b) Lieutenant-colonel (middle-ranking); (c) Major (primary-ranking).
37.3.5.[Article 17 – Duration and age limit for active services for professional servicemen] 1. Duration of active service during peace time: (a) at least six years since the decision to convert into a professional serviceman is issued; (b) To the end of age limit as prescribed in Clause 2; 2. Maximum age limit for active service by rank: (a) Company grade: male (52 years old); (b) Major, lieutenant-colonel: male (54 years old); Senior lieutenant-colonel: male (56 years old); 3. Professional servicemen who have high technical and professional level, adequate political and ethical credentials, good health and volunteer to join the army shall be considered for extension of age limit for active service but for no more than five years.
37.4.The Vietnamese online magazine article, “Vietnamese Communist Party Spies Inside Religious Institutions”, dated 13 April 2022 reports (inter alia) that:
37.4.1.In January 2022, Vu Chien Thang, in his article, revealed one of the upcoming trends in the state’s management of religion: recruiting religious party members and assigning them to understand the religious situation on the ground and to influence the beliefs of the masses and believers. Thang, was also the head of the Government Committee for Religious Affairs, an agency under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Currently, Thang serves as an official in the state management of religions. Thus, his words reflect the Vietnamese government's religious policy. Thang's statement is consistent with the "Red Seed" movement that started in 2004. This was also the year that Vietnam was included in the Countries of Particular Concern on Beliefs and Religions (CPC) list by the United States.
37.4.2.In September 2004, the Vietnamese Politburo issued Regulation No.123-QĐ/TW, which stipulated a number of points regarding the admission of religious individuals as Party members who participate in religious activities. In April 2005, the Central Organization Commission issued Instruction No.40-HD/BTCTW to guide Party organizations in the proper implementation of Regulation No. 123. In the same year, Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh returned to Vietnam for the first time in 40 years. In 2017, when Pham Minh Chinh was still head of the Central Organization Commission, he called on localities to increase the admission of religious individuals into the party. The movement to expand the admission of religious individuals as Party members have been maintained since then.
37.4.3.Communist membership for religious individuals would be unremarkable if done unconditionally. However, the Vietnamese authorities deliberately recruited them into the Party and used them to control and monitor religions. The reasons for their admission into the Party, as mentioned in the press, are to position them in villages and hamlets, which do not have a strong Communist presence, to act as a bridge between the Party and the faithful. However, in 2015, an article by Le Van Loi, the current deputy director of the Ho Chi Minh National Academy of Politics, revealed that the actual reason for this recruitment is to monitor and control the complicated religious situation in Vietnam, including activities of "strange religions" and individuals who "abuse religions to entice and incite religious compatriots to oppose the Party and State."
37.4.4.In a 2021 article, the Dien Bien Phu Newspaper referred to religious Party members as "the extended arm of the party." Dong Nai Newspaper reported that the province's Thong Nhat District, where more than 73 percent of residents are Catholics, had only 663 Party members in 2004 but that the number had increased to 2,640 by 2020. The Can Tho Newspaper notes that on average, Vinh Thanh Town has eight Catholics admitted to the Party every year. And by 2019, the entire town had 114 Catholics who accounted for 62.3 percent of the total number of Party members. While democratic countries try to separate religions from politics, Vietnam has chosen to closely intertwine the two by politicizing religion.
Taking into account the above country information, and in light of the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal considers that:
38.1.The applicant’s father, noted on his Army identification card as a professional soldier, military zone [number], is likely to be a professional serviceman to which the Law on Professional Servicemen and Women, National Defense Workers and Officials No.98/2015/QH13 applies.
38.2.Noting the applicant’s evidence that she thinks her father is a [Rank], and noting the rankings for professional servicemen set out in the applicable law for professional servicemen, it is likely the applicant’s father is of the rank of [Rank] (high-ranking) or (middle-ranking).
38.3.Noting the age limit for professional servicemen set out in the applicable law, the applicant’s father, now aged on or about [Age 5], may be required to conclude his service at the age of [Age 6], unless he is granted an extension of no more than five years on the grounds specified. The Tribunal notes the father’s more than [Number 1] years’ army service.
38.4.Noting the applicable law for professional servicemen, the applicant’s father in his position has a high duty to strictly observe and comply with the laws and policies of the Vietnamese State and Community Party.
38.5.The father’s position with the army and his membership of the Communist Party significantly heightens the applicant’s risk of targeting and harm by the Vietnamese authorities for her illegal departure from Vietnam and practice of the Catholic faith.
38.6.Given the father’s position with the army and his membership of the Communist Party, it is likely the Vietnamese authorities closely monitor the activities of the father and his family members to an extent beyond that experienced by ordinary citizens.
38.7.It is likely the Vietnamese authorities are aware of the applicant’s application for protection in Australia as a result of the data breach.
38.8.Given the father’s position and his membership of the Communist Party, it is likely the father would be strictly held to account by the Vietnamese authorities for any conduct perceived to be in breach of the applicable law for professional servicemen, including conduct condoning or protecting conduct of a family member perceived to be in opposition to state or party policy.
38.9.Given the father’s position and his membership of the Communist Party, it is likely the applicant’s illegal departure from Vietnam would be perceived by the Vietnamese authorities as being conduct in opposition to state or party policy.
38.10.Given the father’s position and his membership of the Communist Party, it is likely the applicant’s practice of the Catholic faith in Vietnam would be perceived by the Vietnamese authorities as being conduct in opposition to state or party policy.
38.11.If the applicant returns to Vietnam, it is likely she would continue openly practising and defending her Catholic faith; and if she restricted her faith activities, it would not be by choice, rather she would do so to avoid or limit being targeted and harmed by the Vietnamese authorities and her father being shamed and penalised in his professional work.
38.12.Given the father’s position and his membership of the Communist Party, if the applicant returns to Vietnam, it is likely the applicant would, in the reasonably foreseeable future, be targeted and harmed by the Vietnamese authorities, including monitoring, questioning, arrest, incarceration and violence, for her illegal departure from Vietnam and practice of the Catholic faith.
38.13.The Tribunal considers that if the applicant returns to Vietnam, there would be no protection available to her from the Vietnamese authorities because they would be the perpetrators or agents of the treatment towards her.
38.14.The Tribunal considers that if the applicant returns to Vietnam, there would be no safe place in the country for her to reside because the Vietnamese authorities would be aware of and monitor her whereabouts.
38.15.The Tribunal considers that if the applicant returns to Vietnam, she would be unable to modify her behaviour to avoid being targeted and harmed by the Vietnamese authorities, including monitoring, questioning, arrest, incarceration and violence, because her vulnerability to this treatment relates to her past illegal departure from Vietnam and her ongoing commitment to and practice of the Catholic faith.
Other considerations
In considering the applicant’s claims and evidence, the Tribunal has also taken account of:
39.1.The Department of Home Affairs ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’.
39.2.The Tribunal’s Migration and Refugee Division Guidelines on the Assessment of Credibility.
Application of law
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and if not, whether he is entitled to complementary protection. Attachment A sets out the applicable law.
The Tribunal finds that:
41.1.The applicant is a non-citizen in Australia.
41.2.The applicant fears being persecuted in Vietnam for being a person who illegally departed the country and returned as a failed asylum seeker and for her commitment to and practice of the Catholic faith.
41.3.There is a real chance the applicant would be persecuted for these reasons.
41.4.The persecution would involve serious harm to the applicant including being targeted and harmed by the Vietnamese authorities, including monitoring, questioning, arrest, incarceration and violence.
41.5.The real chance of persecution relates to all areas of Vietnam.
41.6.There are no effective protection measures available to the applicant in Vietnam.
41.7.The applicant could not take reasonable steps to modify her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in Vietnam.
41.8.The applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution as defined in s 5J of the Act.
41.9.The applicant is outside Vietnam, her country of nationality, and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail herself of the protection of Vietnam.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
decision
The Tribunal remits the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant satisfies s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Kate Chapple
Member

ATTACHMENT A
Summary of applicable law
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B).
Relevant extracts from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
ATTACHMENT B
Relevant Country Information
Australian Government Department of Home Affairs website
In February 2014, a routine report released on the department's website unintentionally enabled access to some personal information about people who were in immigration detention in Australia on 31 January 2014.
U.S. Department of State Religious Freedom Designations – Secretary of State Press Statement, December 2, 2022
Around the world, governments and non-state actors harass, threaten, jail, and even kill individuals on account of their beliefs. In some instances, they stifle individuals’ freedom of religion or belief to exploit opportunities for political gain. These actions sow division, undermine economic security, and threaten political stability and peace. The United States will not stand by in the face of these abuses.
Today, I am announcing designations against Burma, the People’s Republic of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Iran, Nicaragua, the DPRK, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan as Countries of Particular Concern under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 for having engaged in or tolerated particularly severe violations of religious freedom. I am also placing Algeria, the Central African Republic, Comoros, and Vietnam on the Special Watch List for engaging in or tolerating severe violations of religious freedom. Finally, I am designating al-Shabab, Boko Haram, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Houthis, ISIS-Greater Sahara, ISIS-West Africa, Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin, the Taliban, and the Wagner Group based on its actions in the Central African Republic as Entities of Particular Concern.
Our announcement of these designations is in keeping with our values and interests to protect national security and to advance human rights around the globe. Countries that effectively safeguard this and other human rights are more peaceful, stable, prosperous and more reliable partners of the United States than those that do not.
We will continue to carefully monitor the status of freedom of religion or belief in every country around the world and advocate for those facing religious persecution or discrimination. We will also regularly engage countries about our concerns regarding limitations on freedom of religion or belief, regardless of whether those countries have been designated. We welcome the opportunity to meet with all governments to address laws and practices that do not meet international standards and commitments, and to outline concrete steps in a pathway to removal from these lists.
DFAT Country Information Report Vietnam 11 January 2022
Religion
3.13 Vietnam is officially an atheist state. Article 24 of the Constitution nevertheless guarantees a right to freedom of belief and religion. In practice, religious groups are required to register with the Government and the authorities place restrictions on the day-to-day activities of some believers. The 2020 US Department of State International Religious Freedom report estimates, based on census data, that 14 per cent of Vietnamese have some religious faith, with 6 per cent of the population Catholic and 5 per cent Buddhist. Protestants make up about 1 per cent of the population. Small religions and traditional religious-cultural practice (for example, ancestor veneration) are also practised.
3.14 The Law on Belief and Religion came into effect on 1 January 2018. It established a role for the state in protecting religious freedoms and established legal personhood for religious groups. It requires such groups to register with the Government, and religious activities, including routine worship, festivals or conferences, to be registered. Activities can be disallowed on national security or morality grounds. The following sections focus on the day-to-day experiences of religious groups since the law came into effect.
3.15 A key distinction is between registered and unregistered faith groups. After the Vietnam War and the establishment of the unified Socialist Republic, the state created official religious groups and, since then, further groups have become registered. Registered groups worship with limited or no Government interference; those that are not registered may be pressured by Government to join the registered group. Among unregistered groups a further distinction can be made between those groups that have some (perceived) political or foreign agenda and those that do not. Different people of different religions in different areas will also have different experiences, depending on local authorities. Those in cities are less likely to experience official interference.
3.16 The Government recognises 38 religious organisations linked to 16 religious traditions, including Buddhism, Islam and Catholicism. Protestantism is broadly recognised and some international Christian organisations such as Seventh-day Adventists and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) are specifically recognised. Distinct denominations and new sects of any religion must individually register.
3.17 The extent of difficulty that a religious group could expect to face from authorities (for example, refusal of registration, questioning or disruption of activities) can depend on where they are located. Many claims of Government interference are at the hands of local and provincial authorities rather than national authorities. Attitudes and policies can differ between authorities.
3.18 Many incidents relate to religious groups that are politically active in local land or environmental disputes. It can be difficult to distinguish between religious and political claims. The distinction is not necessarily apparent in the everyday experiences of religious adherents or the authorities, either or both of whom may see religious activity as inherently political.
3.19 There are several high-profile examples of religious figures who have advocated for religious freedom and been imprisoned. Such cases are fewer in recent years but those who have been arrested and imprisoned in the past might still be under surveillance by authorities or summoned for regular interrogation. DFAT understands this is generally limited to questioning and surveillance and not violence.
3.20 Pew Research conducted a study in 2016 of global restrictions on religion that included analysis of ‘social hostility’ against people of different religions. That report placed Vietnam as one of the countries with the lowest levels of social hostility, along with other East Asian countries. Several in-country sources told DFAT that religious intolerance between people of different faiths is not an everyday problem in Vietnam.
3.21 DFAT assesses that adherents of officially recognised religious groups are generally able to practise their faith with minimal interference from national authorities, but the situation differs from place to place. Those in large cities are particularly free to practise. Adherents associated with unregistered religious groups generally face more restrictions, which vary depending on region, ethnicity, and any perceived or actual involvement in religious freedom advocacy or political activism.
Catholics
3.22 While Catholics reside in most districts, provinces and cities, the highest concentration is in central Vietnam (Nghe An, Ha Tinh and Quang Binh Provinces). In-country sources report that Catholics are generally able to practise freely at registered churches, particularly in areas with larger Catholic populations.
3.23 The Catholic Church is, by definition, united and can deal with the Government at a national level across Vietnam. Provincial authorities might also have relationships at the diocesan level; sometimes local relationships are better than the national level relationship. In general, relationships between the Government and the Church are cordial. Individual parishes need to be registered.
3.24 Most Catholics worship in churches as part of parishes. Some communities, particularly outside of cities, worship in homes of believers. These activities may be limited by authorities in some cases, but this differs from place to place. In general, Catholics in cities worship freely in churches.
3.25 Some Catholic communities are growing in size with evangelism or welfare efforts. This can occur especially where the local Catholic communities have good relationships with the Government. Some sources report that Catholic missionaries and officials have had difficulty reaching more remote parts of the country in recent years, which might be related to COVID-19 restrictions. Written materials, such as newsletters, websites and social media materials exist, but their maintenance, distribution and promotion do not appear to be a priority for Catholic leaders.
3.26 There have been Catholic political movements that attract negative attention from authorities. The distinction between faith and politics can be difficult to draw. Examples include where Catholics are involved in political, human rights or environmental movements. For example, priests that are involved in those movements may be restricted from public ministry or given a far-away parish assignment. Participation in non-religious activities differs from diocese to diocese and parish to parish.
3.27 The ‘Red Flag Association’, a militant pro-Government movement allegedly under the direction of local governments, was reported to have disbanded in 2018. Red Flag Association activity included protests outside Catholic churches. In-country sources told DFAT that these protests have not occurred in the last two years and that such activity is now more likely to be online.
3.28 Land disputes have been reported, including the seizure of Catholic land and buildings. A particularly prominent example occurred in 2019 when a number of homes and a Catholic church were demolished and the land sold. Appropriated land might be sold to the private sector for development. Conversely, much of the land that was seized from the Church in the aftermath of the Vietnam War has been returned over decades. That process continues, including during the COVID-19 pandemic, reportedly in return for cooperation of the Church with authorities during the pandemic.
3.29 Church officials do not have official relationships with the Catholic Church overseas (except perhaps the Vatican), but in-country sources told DFAT that individual Catholics or communities have relationships with the diaspora overseas, including in Australia, and these relationships are generally unhindered.
3.30 In-country sources told DFAT Catholics generally do not experience societal discrimination. Such discrimination cannot be ruled out, but DFAT understands from in-country sources that there is not a pattern of such discrimination.
3.31 DFAT assesses that Catholics who belong to registered churches and are not politically active face a low risk of official harassment. In-country sources told DFAT that, in general, Catholics are able to worship freely and receive sacraments such as the Eucharist, Reconciliation (confession) and Confirmation. Some Catholics in remote areas have trouble accessing a priest who may not be able to travel to remote areas, whether because authorities will not allow it or because of the remoteness. Catholics who are perceived to challenge the authority or interests of the CPV and its policies, particularly through political activism, face a moderate risk of official discrimination from authorities or their proxies, which may include arrest or violence.
Political opinion (actual or imputed)
3.49 Vietnam is a one-party state and opposition parties are effectively illegal. Threats to CPV legitimacy are seen as threats to the state and are not tolerated…
3.52 The right to assembly is constitutionally protected but, in practice, that right is subject to national security provisions of the Penal Code that prohibit ‘establishing or joining an organisation that [is] against the People’s Government’ (article 109), ‘making, storing or spreading information … opposing the State’ (article 117) and ‘abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the state’ (article 331). These laws effectively outlaw protests that the Government finds sensitive. Official approval is required to protest, which is routinely denied for sensitive topics. Protests that are allowed are subject to close police monitoring.
3.57 It is difficult to make an overall assessment of risks to activists as there are no clear patterns to determine who will be arrested or when. Those who publicly criticise the Government face a moderate risk of official discrimination regardless of what they are protesting. Those who organise protests are more likely to face discrimination, but the possibility of a low-level activist being arrested cannot be discounted.
3.64 It is difficult to give an overall assessment of the risk to online activists, given that Government crackdowns have been observed in relation to a wide range of issues at different times and against different kinds of people. DFAT assesses that online activists face a moderate risk of official discrimination. A repeated pattern of online activity would generally, but not always, attract the attention of authorities.
Exit and entry procedures
5.25 Article 23 of the Constitution allows citizens to ‘freely travel abroad and return home from abroad in accordance with the provisions of the law’. In practice, the Government imposes limits on entry and exit for political activists and Government critics. This is achieved by refusing to issue passports or laying criminal charges to prevent travel, and is sometimes used against the families of persons of interest.
Conditions for returnees
5.29 Articles 120 and 121 of the Penal Code prohibit ‘organising, coercing [or] instigating illegal emigration for the purpose of opposing the People’s Government’ and describes penalties of between three and 20 years’ prison for both organiser and individual émigrés. DFAT is not aware of any cases where these provisions have been used against failed asylum seekers returned from Australia.
5.30 In-country sources report that all individuals involved in people smuggling operations, whether as organisers or travellers, are typically held by authorities for questioning to determine their involvement in operations. Sources have described cases where people have been detained for multiple days or recalled for further questioning. DFAT understands that would-be migrants who have employed the services of people smugglers at worst only face an administrative fine, including in cases of multiple illegal departures.
5.31 DFAT understands that authorities occasionally question returnees from Australia upon their arrival in Vietnam. The interview process generally takes between one to two hours and focuses on obtaining information about the facilitation of any illegal movement on their part. DFAT is not aware of any cases in which returnees from Australia have been held overnight for this purpose.
5.32 Returnees, including failed asylum seekers, labour migrants and trafficking victims, typically face a range of difficulties upon return. These include unemployment or underemployment, and challenges accessing social services, particularly in cases where household registration has ceased. In addition, trafficking victims face social stigma and discrimination, and may experience difficulty in accessing appropriate trauma counselling services outside of large cities. Returnees may be offered assistance by NGOs, but this may be more available to victims of trafficking rather than failed asylum applicants.
5.34 Being a failed asylum seeker is not generally stigmatised. Migration, particularly internal migration, has been a feature of Vietnamese lives for decades, is very common and is even encouraged by the Government. DFAT is not aware of cases of returnees being denied citizenship.
5.35 DFAT assesses that most people who have been subject to people smuggling are seen by the Government as victims, not criminals. Those who use their time overseas to publicly oppose the Government, or who are wanted for similar actions domestically, would be treated in accordance with the procedures set out in Political Opinion (Actual or imputed) and the laws related to illegal emigration might apply to those people. This does not apply to the majority of returning Vietnamese, including those who have departed to seek asylum. This assessment applies to those who have sought asylum in Australia and not to ethnic minorities who have fled by land to neighbouring countries who may be returned from those countries.
Department of Home Affairs Common Claims Vietnam 25 October 2022
(references at the end of Attachment B)
Religion
Religion Authorities permit religious activity while retaining control over religious organisations through registration and oversight. Diplomatic sources informed a UK Home Office Fact Finding Mission to Vietnam that there is no ideological campaign against religion in Vietnam.¹Rather, the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) is suspicious of any organised group – including religious ones – that may challenge its authority, and therefore seeks to control them.² Credible sources indicate that religious organisations who comply with mandated registration requirements (see paragraph below) generally operate with little state interference as do some religious organisations who do not comply with registration requirements.³ Laws even exist which provide a separate process for unregistered, unrecognized religious groups to receive permission for specific religious activities.⁴ Interference with, or suppression of, religious organisations or individuals tends to occur where authorities perceive they challenge the CPV’s authority, interests or policies, particularly through political activism.⁵ For example, official mistreatment of ethnic minority religious groups – typically in highland areas – is generally unconnected with the religious aspects of the group or individuals and more due to involvement in political issues (land or environment protests) or advocacy of democracy.⁶
Religious practice is regulated by law and official oversight, and in some instances restricted. On 1 January 2018, a new Law on Belief and Religion (LBR), accompanied by Decree No162/2017/ND-CP Guidelines for Implementation of the Law on Religion and Folk Belief,⁷ came into effect.⁸ The LBR requires religious groups to register with authorities and obtain official approval for their activities.⁹ Not all groups have chosen to or been able to register their organisations; some groups were simply denied registration or had their request to register ignored by authorities.¹⁰ While some religious groups noted cooperation from authorities in the registration process – including in the northern provinces – others noted local authorities hindered their efforts to register.¹¹ On the whole, central authorities have actively sought to train local officials to correctly implement the LBR and have established an online portal to help religious organisations expedite the registration process.¹² The 2018 Law on Belief and Religion has had mixed consequences for registered and unregistered religious groups. For some already registered groups the LBR has provided clarity about which activities are permitted with a number able to obtain permission for activities previously disallowed.¹³ These groups tend to be larger and well-established, with good relations with authorities.¹⁴ The US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) also reported in 2019 that some interlocutors indicated to them that authorities had generally become more tolerant of religion, with state officials prominently praising the role of religious organizations in promoting social welfare.¹⁵ The LBR also permits religious organizations to participate in education, vocational training, healthcare and social services, previously curtailed.¹⁶
This involvement has been encouraged by authorities and was evident in religious group member involvement in COVID-19 community support including funding contributions and field hospital volunteer work.¹⁷ However, religious groups which choose not to register with the authorities for reasons of conscience, or have had their application for registration rejected or ignored according to some reports experience increased repression under the new law.¹⁸ In November 2021, an implementing decree for the 2018 LBR was considered by the GCRA (General Committee for Religious Affairs) and was said to have shortcomings, although these were not specified.¹⁹ Two draft decrees were circulated for comment in June 2022 and reportedly raised concerns amongst religious leaders.²⁰
The government recognises a wide range of religious groups. While reports vary, the government recognises between 38 and 43 religious organisations and one dharma practice, which are affiliated with 15 distinct religious traditions.²¹ These comprise Buddhism, Islam, Baha’i, Catholicism, Protestantism, Hoa Hao Buddhism, Cao Dai, Buu Son Ky Huong, Tinh Do Cu Si Phat Hoi, Tu An Hieu Nghia, Phat Duong Nam Tong Minh Su Dao, Minh Ly Dao Tam Tong Mieu, Cham Brahmanism Hieu Nghia Ta Lon Buddhism and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.²² The government only recognizes the state-run Buddhist Sangha of Vietnam.²³ Catholic groups – along with Protestants, Muslims, Baha’i and Buddhist groups – are allowed to provide religious education to adherents in their own facilities, and religious leaders noted increased enrolment in these education programs in recent years.²⁴
Specific to religion among ethnic minority groups, Vietnamese officials advised the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in January 2021 that the Central Highlands comprises 500,000 Protestant followers and the Northern mountainous region some 250,000 Protestant believers (mainly from the Hmong ethnic group), across some 1,600 groups, more than 900 of which have been registered by local authorities.²⁵ The Ministry of Public Security estimated there were approximately 70 Protestant groups with nearly 200,000 members operating outside of the legal framework mandated by the LBR.²⁶
The degree to which Vietnamese people can freely practice religion varies widely; urban groups tend to enjoy better treatment than rural ones. Implementation of the LBR varies significantly across provinces,²⁷ and members of the same group may be treated differently in various locations depending on relationships with local authorities.²⁸ Credible sources note that conditions for religious groups tend to be better in urban centres than rural settings.²⁹ According to the USDOS, religious leaders in urban areas and among ethnic-majority Kinh adherents reported the ability to practice without significant restrictions, so long as they acted transparently and did not impede official oversight. This remained true for both officially registered and unregistered religious groups.³⁰ Unregistered and/or ethnic minority religious groups in remote and rural areas by contrast are on occasion subject to ongoing harassment, disruption of services, arbitrary detention and other violations. ³¹ Unlike their unregistered neighbours, recognised religious denominations in highlands areas have reported rapid growth and generally fewer problems with officials.³² Some reports have noted instances of progress in the relationship between authorities and ethno-religious minorities. In August 2020, for example, local authorities in Lam Dong Province announced over USD3 million in funding to help displaced Hmong Christian households to permanently resettle, including through the provision of a medical clinic and community centre.³³
Repression, violence and harassment of religious activities outside state-approved religious groups occurs. The Vietnamese government is suspicious of any organised group that may challenge its authority, and continues to closely monitor and disrupt the activities of unrecognised branches of various religious groups.³⁴ Religious groups report that hindrance or suppression of religious groups by local or provincial authorities,³⁵ can sometimes occur through the mobilization of locals, thugs or cadres by the government.³⁶ Violations have included as well as harassment, disruption of services, arbitrary detention,³⁷ intimidation and intrusive monitoring, arrest, imprisonment and torture,³⁸ physical assault, banishment, detention, imprisonment, and forced renunciation of faith,³⁹. DFAT most recently assesses that those ‘associated with unregistered religious groups generally face more restrictions, which vary depending on region, ethnicity, and any perceived or actual involvement in religious freedom advocacy or political activism.’⁴⁰
Religious freedom has improved in recent years. The USDOS has reported that religious leaders countrywide had noted improving conditions compared with prior years, highlighting better relations between unregistered religious groups and local authorities with a reduction in aggressive forms of harassment.⁴¹ Members of recognized groups or those with certificates of registration said they were generally more able to practice their beliefs with less government interference.⁴² House churches have also been able to operate drug rehabilitation services and some Protestant churches co-operated to provide food and essentials to people during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁴³
Religious adherence per se does not appear to compromise economic opportunities. Most representatives of religious groups continue to report anecdotally that adherence to a registered religious group generally did not seriously disadvantage individuals in nongovernmental, civil, economic, and secular life, but that adherence to an unregistered group was more disadvantageous.⁴⁴ Religious leaders said that actual religious belief was not a cause of official discrimination, but the implication of being affiliated with any type of extralegal group could attract additional scrutiny from authorities.⁴⁵ Practitioners of various registered religious groups hold local and provincial government positions and in the National Assembly.⁴⁶
Land continues to be a flashpoint for religious organisation and state relations. Provincial and local authorities exercise control over land belonging to individuals and religious organizations in the name of social and economic development projects.⁴⁷ Authorities do not hinder projects that require the revocation of land rights and demolition of properties of religious organizations or individuals.⁴⁸Authorities reportedly fail to intervene effectively in many land disputes that involve religious organizations or believers, and in most of these cases, the religious organizations or believers were unsuccessful in retaining land use rights.⁴⁹ Such actions resulted in land disputes involving both registered and unregistered religious organizations.⁵⁰
Treatment of failed asylum seekers
Most individuals who depart Vietnam illegally, for the purpose of seeking asylum, are unlikely to be subjected to relevant laws upon return. DFAT is unaware of any cases of relevant legal provisions being used against failed asylum seekers returned from Australia.³⁰⁰ According to DFAT’s 2019 country report for Vietnam, returns to Vietnam are usually done on the understanding that the individuals in question will not face charges as a result of having made an application for protection.³⁰¹ DFAT’s 2022 Vietnam country report suggests that authorities on occasion question returnees from Australia upon their arrival in Vietnam, with interviews generally taking between one to two hours and conducted to obtain information about the facilitation of any illegal movement on their part.³⁰² DFAT is unaware of any cases in which returnees from Australia have been held overnight for such purposes.³⁰³
In 2016, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Australian Department of Home Affairs and Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security which provides a formal framework for the return of Vietnamese nationals ‘with no legal right to enter or remain in Australia, including those intercepted at sea’.³⁰⁴ Individuals who arrived in Australia via people smuggling networks are also unlikely to face criminal sanctions upon return. The government of Vietnam distinguishes between victims and perpetrators of people smuggling and as such views individuals who paid money to organisers of people smuggling operations as victims of people smuggling, not criminally liable.³⁰⁵ All individuals involved in people smuggling operations however, whether as organisers or travellers, are typically held by authorities for questioning to determine their involvement in operations.³⁰⁶ Sources described to DFAT cases where people have been detained for multiple days or recalled for further questioning.³⁰⁷ DFAT understands that would-be migrants who have employed the services of people smugglers at worst only face an administrative fine, including in cases of multiple illegal departures.³⁰⁸ Activists who return to Vietnam may face ongoing monitoring from authorities. According to DFAT the Vietnamese Government imposes limits on entry and exit for political activists and Government critics through refusing to issue passports.³⁰⁹ The UK Home Office understands that activists who return to Vietnam after seeking asylum overseas may face monitoring, with high-level activists facing more monitoring than low-level activists.³¹⁰ People of particular interest to authorities may be required to have regular conversations or ‘catch ups’ with officials.³¹¹ In January 2019, a Radio Free Asia blogger, Truong Duy Nhat, went missing in Thailand amid fears he had been abducted by Vietnamese agents. He later resurfaced in a Hanoi prison and authorities laid official charges in September 2019.³¹² Two refugees detained in Thailand were visited by Vietnam Embassy staff in August 2022, who unsuccessfully attempted to persuade them to return home.³¹³ Freedom House indicates that activists living outside of Vietnam have had their Facebook accounts suspended for ‘violating the platform’s community standards’, and occasionally have been targets of systematic cyberattacks.³¹⁴
Relocating or leaving the country
Internal relocation is common, despite the requirement to register in one’s new location. The DFAT country information report states that while police maintain a close watch over relocation, with citizens staying even one night away from their homes required to register with local police, internal relocation is nonetheless common.³¹⁵ The USDOS states that the household registration system is used to monitor unlawful activity, but that ‘it is less intrusive than in the past’³¹⁶, and that individuals engaged in or suspected of engaging in unauthorized political activities may be monitored through the registration system more closely.³¹⁷ DFAT acknowledge that in practice police do not strictly enforce laws regarding residence to the extent that it would prevent internal relocation, particularly from rural to urban areas, and consider it ‘unlikely’ that authorities would refuse a person’s request to register in a new location.³¹⁸ DFAT considers that those attempting to relocate to the major cities may experience bureaucratic difficulties, but that relocation to such locales is not impossible.³¹⁹ NGO and academic sources informed a UKHO Fact-Finding Team that household registration is not a barrier to moving around the country and does not prevent free movement.³²⁰ Individuals with certain profiles may be prevented from leaving the country.³²¹
References – DHA Common Claims Vietnam 25 October 2022
Religion
1 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.25, 20190917095808
2 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.25, 20190917095808;
3 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 1, 20220603132903;'DFAT Country Information Report - VIETNAM - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, p 14, 20220111094403; 'Country Policy and Information Note - Vietnam: Hoa Hao Buddhism', UK Home Office, February 2020, pp.11, 14, 20200218104508
4 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, Sect II, p. 7, 20220603132903
5 'DFAT Country Information Report - VIETNAM - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, p 14, 20220111094403 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.25, 20190917095808
6 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 09 September 2019, p.26, 20190917095808
7 ‘Decree No162/2017/ND-CP Guidelines for Implementation of the Law on Religion and Folk Belief’, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, December 2017, 20200806155359
8 'Country Update: An Assessment of Vietnam's Law on Belief and Religion', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 21 November 2019, p.1, 20191122090923
9 ‘Country Reports on Human Rights Practice for 2020 – Vietnam’, US Department of State, 30 March 2021, S2B, p.24, 20210331114522 (not in 2021 report)
10 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 12, 20220603132903
11 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 1, 20220603132903
12 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, pp. 13, 19, 20220603132903
13 'Freedom of religion or belief since the January 2018 Law on Belief and Religion', Christian Solidarity Worldwide, June 2022, p. 2, 20220901152329
14 Freedom of religion or belief since the January 2018 Law on Belief and Religion', Christian Solidarity Worldwide, June 2022, p. 2, 20220901152329
15 'Country Update: An Assessment of Vietnam's Law on Belief and Religion', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 21 November 2019, p.1, 20191122090923
16Report on Human Rights in Vietnam 2021-2022', Vietnam Human Rights Network, 24 June 2022, p. 47, 20220901160002
17 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 20, 20220603132903
18 Freedom of religion or belief since the January 2018 Law on Belief and Religion', Christian Solidarity Worldwide, June 2022, pp. 2, 4, 20220901152329;
19 'United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Annual Report 2022', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 25 April 2022, p.41, 20220426134255
20 'Draft decrees on religion provoke concern', Christian Solidarity Worldwide, 21 June 2022, 20220902162654
21 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 4, 20220603132903 states ‘38’ groups; 'Report on Human Rights in Vietnam 2019-2020', Vietnam Human Rights Network, 14 May 2020, p.52, 20200521115120 states ‘42’ groups; ‘Combined fifteenth to seventeenth reports submitted by Viet Nam under article 9 of the Convention, due in 2015* (CERD/C/VNM/15-17)’, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 13 January 2021, para.70, p.19, 20210215153650 lists 43 groups belonging to 16 religions.
22 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 5, 20220603132903
23 Report on Human Rights in Vietnam 2021-2022', Vietnam Human Rights Network, 24 June 2022, p. 53, 20220901160002
24 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 22, 20220603132903
25 'Combined fifteenth to seventeenth reports submitted by Viet Nam under article 9 of the Convention, due in 2015* (CERD/C/VNM/15-17)', Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 13 January 2021, para.73, pp.19-20, 20210215153650
26 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 12, 20220603132903
27 'Country Update: An Assessment of Vietnam's Law on Belief and Religion', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 21 November 2019, pp.1,3, 20191122090923
28 'Country Policy and Information Note - Vietnam: Hoa Hao Buddhism', UK Home Office, February 2020, pp.11, 14, 20200218104508; 'DFAT Country Information Report - VIETNAM - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, p. 14, 20220111094403
29 ‘Written statement* submitted by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status’, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, 17 June 2021 , para.3, p.2, 20220117114221; 'USCIRF 2020 Annual Report', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 28 April 2020, p.47, 20200429103634; Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.26, 20190917095808
30 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 15, 20220603132903
31 ‘Written statement* submitted by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status’, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, 17 June 2021 , para.3, p.2, 20220117114221; 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.3.15, p.14, 20220111094403
32 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 15, 20220603132903
33 ‘Hopes and fears for religious freedom in Vietnam’, The Hill 20, August 2020, 20200821153509
34 Report on Human Rights in Vietnam 2021-2022', Vietnam Human Rights Network, 24 June 2022, p. 53ff, 20220901160002; 'Human Rights Watch World Report 2022', Human Rights Watch (HRW), 13 January 2022, p. 747, 20220114100636; 'Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019', UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.25, 20190917095808
35 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 1, 20220603132903
36 ‘Vietnam: General Briefing’, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, March 2021, p.1, 20220117150216; ‘Thien An Abbey – 45 Years Under The Government’s Fist’, The Vietnamese, 6 October 2020, 20201008153405
37 ‘Written statement* submitted by Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status’, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, 17 June 2021 , para.3, p.2, 20220117114221
38 ‘Vietnam: General Briefing’, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, March 2021, p.1, 20220117150216
39 'United States Commission on International Religious Freedom Annual Report 2022', United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), 25 April 2022, p.40, 20220426134255
40 'DFAT Country Information Report - VIETNAM - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, p. 14, 20220111094403
41 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 1, 20220603132903
42 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 1, 20220603132903
43 'DFAT Country Information Report - VIETNAM - 11 January 2022', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, p. 16, 20220111094403
44 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 21, 20220603132903
45 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 21, 20220603132903
46 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 21, 20220603132903
47 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 17, 20220603132903
48 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 17, 20220603132903
49 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 17, 20220603132903; 'Religious Freedom in the World Report 2021 Vietnam', Aid to the Church in Need (ACN), 20 April 2021, p. 4, 20220318120233
50 '2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: Vietnam', US Department of State, 2 June 2022, p. 17, 20220603132903
Treatment of failed asylum seekers
300 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.29, p.33, 20220111094403
301 'DFAT Country Information Report Vietnam', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 13 December 2019, p.43, 20191213145121
302 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.31, p.33, 20220111094403
303 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.29, p.33, 20220111094403
304 'DFAT Country Information Report Vietnam', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 13 December 2019, p.43, 20191213145121
305 'DFAT Country Information Report Vietnam', Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 13 December 2019, p. 44, 20191213145121
306 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.30, p.33, 20220111094403
307 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.30, p.33, 20220111094403
308 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.30, p.33, 20220111094403
309 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.25, p.32, 20220111094403
310 ‘Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019’, UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, p.31, 20190917095808
311 ‘Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019’, UK Home Office, 09 September 2019, p.31, 20190917095808
312 '10 Most Censored Countries', Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), New York, 10 September 2019, 20190910171006; ''Unholy alliance'? Southeast Asian authorities accused of trading exiled activists', Reuters, 21 June 2019, 20190624112000; 'RFA Blogger Formally Indicted in Vietnam for ‘Abuse of Power’', Radio Free Asia (RFA), 17 September 2019, 20190918084723
313 'Vietnamese refugees held in Thailand say they fear being forced home', Radio Free Asia (RFA), 12 August 2022, 20220815111023
314 'Freedom on the Net 2022 - Vietnam', Freedom House, 18 October 2022, B2, C8, 20221020141926
Relocating or leaving the country
315 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.18, p.31, 20220111094403
316 2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Vietnam', US Department of State, 12 April 2022, Section 1f, p. 17, 20220413115447
317 '2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Vietnam', US Department of State, 12 April 2022, Section 1f, p. 17, 20220413115447
318 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, para.5.19, p.31, 20220111094403
319 'DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam’, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 11 January 2022, paras.5.21-5.22, pp.31-32, 20220111094403
320 ‘Report of a Home Office fact-finding mission to Vietnam - Conducted between 23 February and 1st March 2019’, UK Home Office, 9 September 2019, para.4.14, p.16, 20190917095808
321 'Vietnam rights lawyer barred from leaving country', Radio Free Asia (RFA), 28 September 2022, 20220929133259; 2021 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Vietnam', US Department of State, 12 April 2022, s 2d, p. 28, 20220413115447