2217900 (Refugee) - [2025] ARTA 2260

2217900 (REFUGEE) [2025] ARTA 2260 (22 AUGUST 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Tribunal Number: 2217900

Tribunal:General Member A Goldsworthy
Date:22 August 2025

Place:Perth
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

Statement made on 22 August 2025 at 3:06pm
CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Vietnam – particular social group – single mothers – child born out of wedlock – potential rejection by family – access to childcare – accommodation – employment – internal relocation – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 5(1), 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 369 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 18 November 2022 to refuse to grant the applicants protection visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants are [an age]-year-old mother (the Primary Review Applicant, referred to as ‘the applicant’), and her [age]-year-old son (Applicant 2) who are nationals of Vietnam. They applied for the visas on 22 March 2022. The delegate refused to grant the visas and the applicants appealed to the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal.
The applicant appeared in-person before the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 26 June 2025 to give evidence. Applicant 2 did not appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages.
The applicants were initially represented in relation to the review, but the representative indicated during the hearing that he would withdraw as the representative. He appeared briefly at the hearing before leaving.
CRITERIA FOR PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act 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, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
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), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs, and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The applicant’s protection claim as detailed in her visa application form can be summarised as being that she had a child out of wedlock, which was an issue in Vietnamese culture and her religion. She would bring shame to herself and her family, and would be unable to reside in her hometown or elsewhere in Vietnam without being discriminated against. She would be forced to work as a single mother away from her home city and was concerned that her child would be at risk of being exploited for begging or abuse. She felt that she would be mistreated by those who would judge her. There were no support services that she could turn to, and her life would be difficult.
The applicants provided the Department with ID including a copy of the biographical pages of their passports, though the applicant’s was not included in the Departmental file passed to the Tribunal. The applicants were not interviewed by the Department.
The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that:
a.they were not satisfied that the applicant was a refugee as defined in s5H(1) of the Act; and
b.they were not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed to Vietnam, there was a real risk the applicant would suffer significant harm; and
c.Applicant 2 did not satisfy s36(2)(b) or s36(2)(c) of the Act as they were not a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who held a Protection visa of the same class applied for in the application and who was a person in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations as provided for in s36(2)(a) or s36(2)(aa) of the Act; and
d.as Applicant 2 had not raised his own claims for protection, he did not satisfy s36(2)(a) or s36(2)(aa) of the Act.
On 18 June 2025 the applicant filed submissions that included a written personal statement, a bundle of articles, and a PhD thesis. These were filed in support of the same claims that she had made in her protection visa application.
During the hearing the applicant said that she had an agent complete her protection visa application form but that she had told him what to write and had given him her statement. She stood by the claims made therein.
Issues with representative/ recipient
The applicant had not expected her registered representative to be at the hearing, but Mr Lo arrived shortly after it began. Mr Lo told the applicant that he was not prepared to make oral submissions as he had not received instructions from the applicant about the submissions she had filed on 18 June 2025.
The applicant nonetheless requested that Mr Lo remain with her at the hearing, but he decided to withdraw as her representative and recipient. He left shortly thereafter.
Despite Mr Lo’s departure, I am satisfied that the applicant received a fair hearing and was able to clearly put forward her claims and supporting evidence.
Background
The applicant was born and raised Catholic in Quy Nhon City, Binh Dinh, Vietnam and she lived there until she left for Australia. Her parents remain together, are retired and live in the same town in a house they own. She has two [sisters], one of whom lives in Quy Nhon City with her own family and works as an [occupation 1], and the other who is an Australian citizen and with whom the applicant lives in Perth.
The applicant first arrived in Australia in 2013. She returned to Vietnam for a short period in 2016 before coming back the same year. In Australia she obtained [specified qualifications]. The applicant also had some experience working at a [business 1] in Vietnam.
She worked in [her professional] field in Australia for less than a year before COVID, after which her workplace closed and her work rights were not renewed through her visa. She has relied on her sister to support her, with the intent of repaying her in future if she is able.
Applicant 2 was born in [specified year] and the Applicant has not seen her child’s father for over five years. She does not know how to contact him.
The applicant has a good relationship with each member of her family but her father is not aware of her son. The applicant is in regular contact with her mother and sister in Vietnam but has reduced contact with her father for fear that he will ask her about her life in Australia.
I accept the above ‘background’ evidence.
Harm from family, and from the general public
The applicant said that if returned, she would be afraid of telling her father the truth of her situation, being that she had a child out of wedlock. She said that he had high blood pressure and she was not sure if he could withstand hearing something that would shock him like this. He was the eldest son in his family of [number] children, so was expected to be the example for all his siblings to follow. She would be the first of all her relatives to damage his reputation badly. Her relatives would no longer regard her father as highly as they had, and he would lose standing in his family. The applicant said that she did not know if he would accept her and her son living with him.
When asked why she would have to move to another city if her father did not accept her living with him, the applicant said that her father was only part of the reason she would have to move. She and her son would also be looked down upon by other people. She would feel too ashamed to remain.
When asked why she thought that her father might not let her live with him, noting they had always had a good relationship, the applicant said that it was because of the type of person he was - a person of honour and traditional values, and a devout Catholic. She said that in Catholicism it was considered shameful and breached the teachings, and her father would not accept her even though he loved her.
The Tribunal put to her that she had earlier said she did not know if he would accept her and her son, so how did she now know that he would not?
The applicant said that she knew how shocking it would be for him, and she could not imagine how he would react, but she knew it would be terrible.
The Tribunal further put to her that Catholic teaching may discourage having children out of wedlock, but it also discouraged such actions as a father shunning his child without forgiveness.
The applicant acknowledged that her parents would not disown her, but claimed she would not be welcomed to live in their home. Also, she did not want to live in their home as she did not want to be the shame of the family.
The Tribunal noted that her mother and sisters knew about her situation yet still loved and supported her; would they not do the same if she lived alone with her son in her hometown?
The applicant acknowledged they would, but said that her hometown was not that big and everyone knew everyone. People would still go to her father and speak poorly about her.
She also said that her mother would be unable to stand up against her father on the issue, meaning that her mother would not be able to leave him to live with her. Nor would her sister, as she had her own family. Her brother-in-law’s family would also look at her differently and think poorly about their family.
The applicant said that she would be discriminated against by her own family, relatives, neighbours and friends.
When asked what she meant by being discriminated against, she said that they would talk down to her and judge her, isolating her in the process. The men would consider her ‘easy’ and a target for verbal harassment. The women would worry that the men would try to sleep with her, and they would find other ways to put her down.
The applicant said that if her father did not accept her and her son, she would have to move to a different city and that would be hard to sustain alone. She did not know whether she should move to a big city where the prejudices would be less but the living costs higher, or to a smaller city where she may be able to sustain herself and her son but where the same prejudices and discrimination would abound as in her hometown.
The applicant also feared for her son as he only spoke English and would therefore face language obstacles.
Further, she said that he might be isolated by friends at school and called names, and this might lead to him not studying at all.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that she relied on an interpreter, so how did she communicate with her son? She clarified that he could understand simple Vietnamese but at school all of his friends spoke English and the entertainment he watched was all in English, so his Vietnamese was limited. She said that he could not form a sentence and that while she may talk to him in Vietnamese, he responded in English.
The Tribunal referenced the applicant’s comment in her protection visa application about being judged as a westernised Vietnamese who practiced western ideologies, and said that on the face of it, this did not accord with information before the Tribunal.
The applicant clarified that people would see her as having gotten into her situation with a child out of wedlock due to having lived in a developed country and taken on the ideology, values and libertine ways of life. She said they would view her as a lesser person because of her choices and would exhibit this through the way they looked at her and by ridiculing and mocking her.
The applicant then explained the relevance of each of the documents she had submitted.
Regarding the articles on abortion, the applicant said the statistic of Vietnam having the highest rate in the world evidenced that women feared the realities of being a single mother with a child out of wedlock. The applicant said that she believed that no mother would choose to give their child up if they did not harbour that fear.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that it did not find her reasoning very compelling, and that there seemed to be many reasons that people had abortions.
The applicant acknowledged that the reasons in Australia may differ, being that perhaps the pregnancy was unplanned, or the mother could not bear the responsibility of having a child. In Vietnam, she said, many of the abortions were carried out in the big cities and women would have abortions there before returning to their small towns. She said that this might be because prejudices were worse in the smaller towns.
The Tribunal noted that it could also be because abortions were more readily available in the big cities. The applicant acknowledged that this could be one of the reasons.
Regarding the relevance of the article about a child having been force-fed in a nursery, the applicant said that these things happened in the lower-quality child-care nurseries. If in order to sustain her and her son she had to take on multiple jobs, she would have to send her son to care and she would not be able to afford high quality care. She was afraid that this was the state in which he might find himself. She said it would be easy to find more examples like this one.
Regarding the relevance of the article titled ‘married women living like single moms’, the applicant said that she wanted to show how women were considered in Vietnamese society. If even a married woman would be treated as poorly the article suggested, not having the same rights and power as their husband, how much harder would it be for her as a single mother?
Regarding the relevance of the articles about kidnapping, she said this was something she was afraid her son would be subjected to if she needed to work multiple jobs or take night shifts. He may need to stay home alone or get to and from school alone. With the rates of kidnapping increasing, she feared it would become a reality for her.
When asked if kidnapping was prevalent in her hometown, she said it was not as bad as in the large cities and those close to the borders.
The Tribunal referenced the applicant’s comment that employers often did not want to hire women, especially single mothers, and said that this did not appear to be the case as many women in Vietnam were employed and of those, a portion would be single women.
The applicant agreed that there were many women with jobs but said that it would be more difficult to secure one than if she were in a ‘normal family’ that had two adults looking after the children and earning a wage, and leaving children with grandparents to look after. She said that if a potential employer heard that she had no family to lean on, it would be hard for her to get a job.
The applicant also said that if she were to work, she would be faced with gender inequality and would be more prone to sexual harassment as men would see her as an easy woman. She pointed to the PhD thesis that she had submitted as evidence of this.
I put to the applicant that many of her submissions and accompanying oral explanations seemed highly speculative. I noted that such evidence did not form a strong basis on which to make findings. As examples I referenced her written comments on the challenges of dating and marriage for single mothers, and written comments on the potential psychological impacts on children having a single mother.
The applicant said that she understood a lot of it was speculative and that was why she had submitted a lot of articles to support her claims. She said her comments may be generalised, but they did apply to her situation. She said that the reality of single mothers was that it was hard to find a man who would view them as a potential candidate for marriage.
As for psychological impacts on children with a single mother, she said that what differentiated them in Australia as compared to Vietnam was that here they received better financial support, and this helped to reduce the pressure on them such that they could possibly manage working just one job and having time for children. She said that she noticed when she took her son to school here, no one asked about his father. This would be different in Vietnam.
The Tribunal put to the applicant country information that single mothers, including with children born out of wedlock, may attract stigma, especially in rural areas,[1] but that I did not consider her hometown, as a city of close to half a million people, to be rural. The applicant agreed that her hometown was not rural.
[1] DFAT Country Information Report: Vietnam, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 19 February 2025 (‘2025 DFAT Report’), [3.122].
When asked what the applicant wanted the Tribunal to take away from the 250-page PhD thesis she had submitted, she said it was that life as a single mother was difficult in Vietnam. Being seen as not adhering to Confucian virtues, she would be looked down upon, shunned, and prone to sexual harassment. Also, that there was little financial support from government, which she would need to be able to cover living expenses.

The applicant said that while the thesis only referenced the experiences of 12 women, they were representative of many other women who experienced prejudices and discrimination.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that the women had all found strategies to cope, and had reportedly all shared the attribute of striving to be self-sufficient; they seemed to be surviving so why would she be different?
The applicant said that they had to continue on as they had children they needed to care for and that was what mothers did – they did not give up. She said the difference was that she had the opportunity to be in Australia so was trying her best to stay, and if those 12 women in the report had the same opportunity, they would do the same.
The Tribunal referenced a comment in the same report, that in many cases government support was limited and did not always meet the needs of the women. I put to her that this indicated that sometimes the support was not limited and did meet their needs.
The applicant said that there was a women’s union that offered financial assistance, but to be eligible you needed to prove you were a poor household and were deserving; this would be very shameful to prove.
After proving it, she said you would be judged by others. The women in the report had said it was hard to be assessed as eligible. To prove eligibility, they had to stand in front of a committee and explain their circumstances. The fear was that the explanation itself was not confidential and many women feared that others would learn the truth about them. Furthermore, even if they were able to explain their circumstances, the committee members were usually elderly members who had conservative views about single mothers. All in all, it would be hard to be deemed eligible. The applicant further stated that there was a lot of red tape and paperwork involved.
The Tribunal put country information to the applicant, that around one-third of women aged 15 to 49 were not married in 2023, and there were no legal barriers to being a single female-headed household.[2]
[2] 2025 DFAT Report, [3.121].
The applicant agreed that there were no legal barriers but said that cultural norms and values were deep-seated, and it was the social prejudices and injustices she was worried about. She said that the government could not stop people from having their prejudices as that was their right.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that DFAT assessed that single mothers faced a low risk of official discrimination and a moderate risk of societal discrimination in the form of family pressure to marry in the case of single women. Stigma did not necessarily translate into broader societal discrimination.[3]
[3] 2025 DFAT Report, [3.128].
The applicant said that no countries would want to show the world their wrongdoings or social injustices so this information may not reflect reality accurately and completely. She said that women in situations like hers were used to being dismissed and not heard, so they suffered in silence and would not show up in statistics or offer their opinions.
The applicant said that all of the risks that she had outlined would also lead to mental and emotional harm.
Findings of fact and reasons
The issue in this case is whether the applicants face serious or significant harm in Vietnam. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
Harm from family and society
Having regard to the applicant’s mother and sisters knowing about her situation and still loving and supporting her, I find that the applicants will return to live in her home city so as to be near to her immediate family.
I acknowledge that single mothers, including with children born out of wedlock, may attract stigma, especially in rural areas.[4] I place significant weight on Quy Nhon City not being a rural area, as was acknowledged by the applicant. Having had regard to the city’s population size, I do not accept the applicant’s assertion that ‘everyone’ knows everyone.
[4] 2025 DFAT Report, [3.122].
I place significant weight on the DFAT assessment that single mothers face a low risk of official discrimination and a moderate risk of societal discrimination, noting that stigma does not necessarily translate away from family into broader societal discrimination.[5] I place greater weight on the DFAT report than on the PhD thesis submitted by the applicant. The latter is based on a qualitative assessment of 12 women only and does not appear to have been published in a peer reviewed journal.
[5] 2025 DFAT Report, [3.128].
Having considered the country information, I accept that some people, including other Catholics and also some of the applicant’s extended family, will form poor views of the applicant for being a single mother who had a child out of wedlock. Based on the DFAT information’s qualification that she ‘may’ attract stigma and that this would be most likely in rural areas, as well as it not necessarily translating away from family into broader societal discrimination, I find that only some people will speak poorly of the applicants due to their situation and that this will be intermittent. I accept that this will be emotionally difficult for them.
I find that the applicant will tell her father that she had a child out of wedlock and that she will experience some relational challenges with him that will arise from his shock and disappointment at learning this.
I accept that the applicant’s father’s relationship with his own family of origin will be damaged because of the applicant being a single mother with a child born out of wedlock. I find that this will have an emotional impact on the applicant because she will feel some guilt for the treatment of her father by his family.
I now turn to the applicant’s generalised claims that at work she will be faced with gender inequality and be prone to sexual harassment. The 2013 Constitution stipulates that all citizens are equal before the law and prohibits discrimination on political, civic, economic, cultural or social grounds.[6] The Labour Code (2019) prohibits discrimination in employment, including on grounds of gender.[7] It further provides for equality between men and women in the workplace, prohibits discrimination on the grounds of marital status and pregnancy, and forbids sexual harassment.[8] Whilst the existence of the law does not necessarily reflect the risk of the discrimination and harassment nonetheless occurring, I find that it acts as a deterrent and reduces some risk, but that women still face gender discrimination in employment, including in job opportunities and job growth.[9]
[6] 2025 DFAT Report, [2.78].
[7] 2025 DFAT Report, [2.79].
[8] 2025 DFAT Report, [3.113].
[9] accessed on 22 August 2025.
I therefore find there to be a real chance that the applicant will face both gender inequality and sexual harassment at work.
Whilst being generalised, I accept the applicant’s assertion that men will consider her ‘easy’ and a target for verbal harassment and that women will worry that the men will try to sleep with her.
I have turned my mind to the applicant’s fear of being unable to find a man who will view her as a potential candidate for marriage. I draw inference from the applicant’s concern that she wants to find a man to marry. I therefore find that any pressure from her loving family to marry will only assist her, as it will add to the number of people who are looking for a potential husband.
It would be speculative to make a finding on the applicant being unable to find a man who will view her as a potential candidate for marriage. The applicant would first need to meet a man whom she wanted to date, and then the relationship would need to progress to a stage where she determined he was a potential candidate for marriage, and then he would have to refuse to marry her based on him subscribing to the view that she was not marriageable. As such, I do not consider this further.
I have turned my mind to the applicant’s claim that she will be judged as a westernised Vietnamese who practiced western ideologies. When asked about this, the applicant clearly explained what she meant by it, being that people would see her as having gotten into her situation with a child out of wedlock due to having lived in a developed country and taken on the ideology, values and libertine ways of life. I have already addressed the factors related specifically to this and will therefore not consider it further.
I find that the harm arising to the applicants from the following does not amount to the level of harm envisaged by the non-exhaustive examples of serious harm in s5J(5), nor does it meet the definition of significant harm as exhaustively defined in s36(2A):
a.some people forming poor views of the applicant for being a single mother who had a child out of wedlock;
b.some people intermittently speaking poorly of the applicants;
c.relational challenges the applicant will have with her father;
d.guilt she will experience for the treatment received by her father from his family because of her situation;
e.the applicant facing gender inequality and sexual harassment at work;
f.the applicant being a target for verbal harassment due to men considering her as ‘easy’; and
g.women worrying that men will try to sleep with her.
To avoid doubt, having had regard to the individual circumstances of the applicants, and to country information, I find that they do not face a real chance of serious harm into the reasonably foreseeable future, or a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal for reasons of harm from family or society in general.
Religion
The applicant claimed that having a child out of wedlock would be an issue with her religion, being Catholicism. When elaborating on this she only claimed harm via her father, who was devout in his faith. She instead focused on being seen as not adhering to Confucian values. I have nonetheless already accepted that the applicant will experience some Catholics outside of her family speaking poorly of her and that this will cause some emotional harm.
To avoid doubt, having had regard to the evidence provided by the applicant that I have accepted, to country information before me, and to findings I have already made as to her father and other Catholics, I find that the applicants do not face a real chance of serious harm into the reasonably foreseeable future, or a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal for reasons relating to religion.
Harm arising from other factors
I do not accept the applicant’s characterisation of Applicant 2’s comprehension of the Vietnamese language as being basic. I accept that she speaks to him primarily in Vietnamese and that he prefers to respond in English. At the age of [age], and with his mother speaking to him in Vietnamese for his entire life, I find that he understands Vietnamese well.
I accept that Applicant 2’s spoken Vietnamese is at a more basic level than his English and that he will therefore face some initial challenges in communication if returned. Based on his age, on his existing level of understanding of the Vietnamese language, and his having a basic grasp already of speaking Vietnamese, I find that the challenges will be limited in both duration and difficulty.
I accept that some children at school will bully and/or isolate Applicant 2 for not having a father who is present. I find it highly doubtful, and I reject the speculative claim that this will lead to him not studying at all into the reasonably foreseeable future.
I do not accept the applicant’s speculation that she might have to leave her young son home alone when she goes to work, or that he would have to get to and from school alone. Based on her relationship with her parents and immediate family, I find that they will not allow this to eventuate and, if needed, will mind her son. The applicant separately said that she would have to send her son to paid childcare, which I accept.
As I have found that she will not leave her young son home alone when going to work, I will not consider her concerns about what might happen if she left her son at home alone.
I reject the applicant’s speculation of what might happen to her son at childcare. I have had regard to the article submitted into evidence, which reported an instance of a baby being force-fed. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that abuse of children in Vietnamese childcare centres goes beyond isolated incidents. To avoid doubt, I find the chance of Applicant 2 being abused at childcare to be remote.
I find that the harm arising to the applicants from Applicant 2 having some limited language challenges and from being bullied and/or isolated by some school peers, does not amount to the level of harm envisaged by the non-exhaustive examples of serious harm in s5J(5), nor does it meet the definition of significant harm as exhaustively defined in s36(2A).
To avoid doubt, I find that the applicants do not face a real chance of serious harm into the reasonably foreseeable future, or a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal for reasons of Applicant 2’s Vietnamese comprehension, his being bullied and/or isolated at school, his continuation of studies, or his care while she works.
Employment and accommodation
I accept the applicant’s evidence that she will find work but that to sustain her and her son she may need to take on multiple jobs or night shifts.
The applicant’s evidence on whether or not her father would accept her and her son was inconsistent, with her at times being unsure and at others saying he would not. I find that if she was not sure at one point whether he would accept them, she could not then be sure that he would not.
The applicant’s evidence on whether her father would allow them to live in his house was inconsistent. At one time she said that he would not welcome them to live there while at another she said she was not sure. I find that if she was not sure at one point whether he would allow them to live in his house, she could not then be sure that he would not.
The applicant told the Tribunal that her father loved her and that her parents would not disown her. I have made findings that she was not sure whether her father would accept them or welcome them to live in his home. The issues of not disowning her yet not accepting her are nuanced, but to disown is to formally and definitely reject her, while to not accept her can be simply not acknowledging her. Based on her having said that he will still love her and will not disown her, I find that they will have some relational challenges but will still have a relationship.

100. I have considered the applicant’s evidence that she would not want to live with her parents due to shame. There is no information before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant would choose to be homeless rather than live with her parents along with feelings of shame.
101. Having had regard to the above and to the applicant’s good relationship with her family, I find that the applicant’s parents will not allow her or her son to be homeless and will therefore temporarily allow them to stay with them until she is able to arrange work and separate living arrangements. I also find that the applicant will choose not to be homeless and will therefore accept her parents’ openness to temporarily stay with them.
102. Having had regard to the level of harm envisaged by the non-exhaustive examples of serious harm in s5J(5), and to significant harm as exhaustively defined in s36(2A), I find that neither of the applicants face serious or significant harm in relation to the applicant working multiple jobs and/ or working nights shifts to sustain them, or for living with her parents temporarily.
103. To avoid doubt, I find that they do not face a real chance of serious harm into the reasonably foreseeable future, or a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal for reasons of employment or accommodation.
Mental and emotional harm
104. The applicant said that all of the risks that she had outlined would also lead to mental and emotional harm. I find this claim to be generalised and vague.
105. There is no information before the Tribunal to suggest that either applicant currently suffers from mental illness, nor that they are prone to developing mental illness into the reasonably foreseeable future. I therefore find that they will not.
106. I have already accepted that they will suffer a degree of emotional harm from some people forming poor views of the applicant for being a single mother who had a child out of wedlock, from some people intermittently speaking poorly of both applicants, from Applicant 2 being bullied and/or isolated by some children at school, as well as from the relational challenges the applicant will have with her father, and the guilt she will experience for witnessing his changed treatment by his family because of her.
107. I also find that Applicant 2 will suffer a degree of emotional harm from realising that he was born out of wedlock, and from limited struggles with the Vietnamese language.
108. I also find that the applicant will face a degree of emotional harm from seeing the harm faced by her son.
109. Having had regard to the applicants returning to the applicant’s home city which will be familiar to her, and to her mother and siblings being supportive of them, I find that the harm arising to the applicants from the emotional harm I have accepted above, does not amount to the level of harm envisaged by the non-exhaustive examples of serious harm in s5J(5), nor does it meet the definition of significant harm as exhaustively defined in s36(2A).
110. The applicant separately claimed that Applicant 2 would suffer psychological harm for having a single mother. She explained this as being due to her having less time to spend with him as she would have less government support than in Australia, and would therefore need to work more.
111. Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, and on my findings that the applicant’s immediate family will support her and her son, there is no basis to find that Applicant 2 would face a real chance of serious harm for the essential and significant reason of being persecuted by a third party, whether an individual or the state. The harm Applicant 2 faces is one that arises due to a move to a less developed country with fewer resources. This does not have a persecutory element.
112. When considering Complementary Protection, ‘significant harm’ for these purposes is exhaustively defined in s 36(2A): s 5(1). A person will suffer significant harm if he or she will be arbitrarily deprived of their life; or the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or the person will be subjected to torture; or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or to degrading treatment or punishment. There is no information before the Tribunal to suggest that the psychological harm faced by Applicant 2 for having a single mother, amounts to any of these.
113. To avoid doubt, I find that the applicants do not face a real chance of serious harm into the reasonably foreseeable future, or a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal for reasons of mental or emotional harm.
Cumulative harm
114. I have already considered the cumulative effects of the emotional harm to the applicants.
115. I now turn my mind toward whether all of the harm that I have accepted, and the risk of harm when considered cumulatively, may rise to the degree of serious or significant harm.
116. Having had regard to country information outlined in this decision and to the individual circumstances of the applicants, including the familial support they will have, the fact the applicant will find work to sustain the applicants into the reasonably foreseeable future, and that they will return to her home city, I find that the cumulative harm they face does not amount to the level of harm envisaged by the non-exhaustive examples of serious harm in s5J(5), nor does it meet the definition of significant harm as exhaustively defined in s36(2A).

117. To avoid doubt, I find that the applicants do not face a real chance of serious harm into the reasonably foreseeable future, or a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal for reasons of cumulative harm.
Conclusion

For the reasons given above the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicants is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations. Therefore the applicants do not satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa. It follows that they are also unable to satisfy the criterion set out in s 36(2)(b) or (c), and cannot be granted the visa.
DECISION

119. The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants protection visas.
Date(s) of hearing: 26 June 2025
Representative for the Applicant: N/A
ATTACHMENT - Extract 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.
…