2203960 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa claims of two brothers, identified as [Applicant 1] and [Applicant 2], who are citizens of Vietnam. The applicants claimed they feared persecution upon return to Vietnam due to their Catholic faith, their participation in anti-government protests, and their illegal departure from Vietnam as asylum seekers. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether they had a well-founded fear of persecution or would suffer significant harm if returned to Vietnam.

The Tribunal was tasked with assessing the credibility of the applicants' claims, particularly concerning their involvement in protests and any adverse attention from Vietnamese authorities. It also had to consider whether the applicants constituted a particular social group, such as family members of a successful applicant, and whether they faced a real risk of significant harm as contemplated by the complementary protection criterion. The Tribunal was also required to consider the validity of a Safe Haven Enterprise visa application lodged by one of the applicants.

The Tribunal found that [Applicant 1] had established a well-founded fear of persecution. This was based on his credible evidence of being a practising Catholic, his membership in the Cau Ram Youth Group, and his participation in anti-government protests, which led to confrontations with state authorities and threats of violence. The Tribunal accepted that he had been beaten by authorities and that his parents had advised him not to return due to the dangers faced by Catholics. In contrast, the Tribunal found issues with the credibility of [Applicant 2]'s claims, but acknowledged he might be considered a member of a particular social group as the brother of a successful applicant. The Tribunal set aside the second Safe Haven Enterprise visa application as invalid. The decision under review was remitted.