2200048 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, a national of Vietnam, claimed to fear being killed by a loan shark due to debts incurred from borrowing money from an unregistered money lender. The applicant also had criminal convictions in Australia for which he had completed his sentence.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, as defined by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Additionally, the court had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant's removal to Vietnam, there was a real risk of him suffering significant harm, thereby entitling him to complementary protection.

The court found that, apart from societal disapproval and family discrimination, the applicant did not establish a fear of harm from Vietnamese authorities due to his criminal convictions. It was not satisfied that there was a real chance of the applicant being charged or facing harm from Vietnamese authorities on account of his completed sentences. Furthermore, after considering all claims cumulatively, the court was not satisfied that the applicant faced a real chance of serious harm, individually or collectively, as contemplated by section 5J(1) of the Act. Consequently, the applicant was not considered a refugee under section 5H(1) of the Act, nor did he meet the criterion under section 36(2)(a). The court also found that there were not substantial grounds for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Vietnam, and therefore did not meet the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa).

Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.