1507482 (Refugee)

1507482 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 798 (18 April 2017)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1507482
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Thailand
MEMBER:Suhad Kamand
DATE:18 April 2017
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.

Statement made on 18 April 2017 at 9:09am
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection visa – Thailand – Particular social group – Money lenders – Threats of violence – Attack on business premises – Delay in applying for application – Credibility issues

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 36, 91R, 91S, 424AA, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 Schedule 2

CASES
MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559
Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275
Prasad v MJEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Luu & Anor v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39
Randhawa v MIEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
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 dependant.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

The applicant, a male national of Thailand, arrived in Australia [in] July 2012 holding a [temporary] visa issued [in] June 2012. He has not departed since that time. [In] August 2012 he applied for a Student [visa]. [In] October 2012 that application was refused by the Department. The applicant sought review of that decision by the then named Migration Review Tribunal (MRT), differently constituted, which, on 20 November 2012, affirmed the Department’s decision. [In] August 2014 a request for Ministerial intervention in the applicant’s case was not considered. [In] August 2014 the applicant lodged the Protection visa application the subject of this review. A delegate of the Minister for Immigration refused to grant the visa [in] May 2015 and the applicant sought this Tribunal’s review of that decision[1].
[1] The above immigration history is detailed in the delegate’s decision record, a copy of which was submitted to the Tribunal by the review applicant.
On the basis of all the evidence before it and for the cumulative reasons given below, the Tribunal has concluded that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and affirms the delegate’s decision.
Relevant law has been included at Appendix 1.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Generally, the issue for the Tribunal is whether it can be satisfied on the evidence before it that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations.
The applicant’s express claims and those arising on the evidence are that he faces a real chance of serious and/or significant harm in Thailand in connection with money he borrowed from five lenders in Thailand, including loan sharks. He fears harm, including torture and/or death, at the hands of loan sharks to whom he continues to owe money.
Delegate’s decision
The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the refugee criterion or under complementary protection. The applicant has provided the Tribunal with a copy of that decision record.
Issues before the Tribunal
The Tribunal must generally assess whether: it is satisfied of the credibility and truth of relevant aspects of the applicant’s claims and evidence; on the evidence before it, it is satisfied that the applicant faces a well-founded fear, based on a real chance, of persecution involving serious harm if he returns to Thailand. If the Tribunal is not satisfied that he is a refugee, it must then consider whether he is owed complementary protection. That involves an assessment of whether there are substantial grounds for believing that he faces a real risk of significant harm in Thailand for any of the reasons claimed or arising on the evidence.
The Tribunal’s assessment is informed by a range of sources including: the Department’s file relating to the applicant which includes his Protection visa application form signed on [a date in] August 2014 and his statutory declaration sworn [in] August 2014 (2014 Declaration). Document’s provided in support comprise identity documents for the applicant including documents related to military service in Thailand[2], a copy of his Thai passport, as well as country information in support of his claims. He has also submitted photographs of what appears to be a damaged building[3]. The Tribunal has also listened to the audio recording of the applicant’s Department interview in respect of his claims which took place [in] May 2015. The Tribunal’s assessment is also informed by its detailed exploration of the applicant’s claims when he appeared in person before it on 31 January 2017 (2017 Appearance). During that appearance he communicated with the Tribunal through an interpreter in the English and Thai languages. His Registered Migration Agent (RMA) was also present at that hearing. At the commencement of the hearing the Tribunal asked the applicant if there are any issues he wishes to make the Tribunal aware of regarding his capacity to participate in the hearing/review. He responded in the negative. Post hearing information was also submitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s considerations are informed by all of the above, as well as other sources, including independent sources, referenced where relevant below.
[2] Folio 12, [File number]
[3] Ibid, folio 115-118
Assessment of the applicant’s claimed circumstances – credibility
The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is "well-founded" or that it is for the reason claimed. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that all of the statutory elements are made out: MIEA v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative inquiries and decision-making (Yao-Jing Li v MIMA (1997) 74 FCR 275 at 288), the relevant facts of the individual case will have to be supplied by the applicant himself or herself, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for him or her: Prasad v MJEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70; Luu & Anor v Renevier (1989) 91 ALR 39 at 45. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically any and all the allegations made by an applicant: Randhawa v MIEA (1994) 52 FCR 437 at451.
Having had the opportunity to: discuss the applicant’s claims and evidence with him during his Tribunal appearance; and reflect on that evidence in the context of all the evidence before it, the Tribunal has concerns regarding the truth of central aspects of the claims and evidence advanced. While those concerns are not singularly determinative of the credibility of the claims made overall, cumulatively, they leave the Tribunal unable to be satisfied that the applicant faces a real chance of serious or significant harm in Thailand in the reasonably foreseeable future for any of the reasons claimed or arising on the evidence.
The applicant’s circumstances in Thailand, generally, are set out in his Protection visa application form which was completed with the assistance of his current RMA, to the following effect: he is a national of Thailand who was born in [year]; he speaks, reads and writes in the English and Thai languages; he is of Thai ethnicity and the Buddhist religion; he has never married or been in a de-facto relationship; he holds a Thai passport which was issued in [2012] and which remains valid until [2017]; he departed Thailand for Australia legally [in] July 2012; he maintains contact with relatives in Thailand through “regular phone calls”[4], his family comprising his mother, [and various family members] (his father being deceased since March 2004). He identifies only one address where he has lived in Thailand from birth until July 2012, being in [Town 1], Bangkok. Regarding his employment in Thailand, he indicates that he was self-employed in a [product] business in [Town 1], Bangkok, from 1991 until [July] 2012, after which he came to Australia.
[4] Ibid, folio 71
Regarding his claims for Australia’s protection he refers to his 2014 Declaration which is witnessed by his RMA. That declaration is to the following effect:
a.in 1991 he started a business partnership with [Mr A], a [national of Country 1], using the name “[Company 1]”. They exported 100% of their products to [Country 1]. They employed [number] employees and made revenue in the order of [amount] Baht per year;
b.“all initial capital was contributed by my business partner, [Mr A]”;
c.in 1997 the applicant opened a wholesale and retail [business] selling [other specified goods];
d.in 2002 [Mr A] left the partnership to invest in [another country] and the applicant became the sole proprietor and had to rely on himself for cash flow;
e.in 2002 the auditing company took his businesses Value Added Tax (VAT) reserve which was worth around [large amount] and “ran away”. He had to pay [similar amount] Thai Baht in tax for the VAT which “completely drained my cash flow”;
f.he started to borrow money “from various 5 lenders” to pay the wages to employees which was reduced in number to [number];
g.in 2006 he changed his business name to [Company 2];
h.in 2009 that business employed [number] people;
i.the financial situation worsened and “we look for additional export market without success”;
j.in 2012 the businesses cash flow was at its lowest level and they were unable to pay their 5 lenders. They “began to get various threats from the lenders”, the most aggressive being a lender named [Lender A] who would bring at least 2 friends with him to the [product] store to collect money. The other lenders and their interest rates are also listed by the applicant[5];
k.another lender named [Lender B] would visit the applicant’s mother knowing that if the money wasn’t repaid he would “exercise the power of mortgagee and transfer the title into his name”[6];
l.[in] July 2012 he left Thailand for Australia “to get additional income to clear debt”;
m.after he left Thailand his [Relative A], [named], changed his [product] shop to a [service] business and a relative named [Ms A] is looking after the factory;
n.a week after the applicant left Thailand his relative [Ms A], who was looking after the factory, received many threats from the lenders, especially [Lender A]. The threats included “assault leading to death if found me (sic)”. [Lender A] also “send his mobs to terrorise by banging on the doors of the factory and [product] shop (which now turned into [a service business])”[7]. When these mobs were told the applicant was no longer working at the factory and had gone overseas they “turn angry and threaten to come back to collect money and killed me (sic) whenever they see me back into Thailand”[8];
o.he fears that, if he returns to Thailand, he will be harmed, including tortured and/or killed, by the five money lenders. He does not think the Thai authorities will protect him as they turn a blind eye and/or take bribes from illegal loan sharks.
[5] Paragraphs 12 to 16, 2014 Declaration
[6] Ibid, paragraph 19
[7] Ibid, paragraph 24
[8] Ibid, paragraph 215
The applicant submitted to the Tribunal an updated statutory declaration sworn on 18 January 2017 (2017 Declaration), witnessed by his solicitor/RMA. The first 30 paragraphs are identical to the 2014 Declaration. The last few paragraphs largely focus on why the applicant did not seek Australia’s protection when he first arrived in Australia and are to the following effect:
a.he had no knowledge of the Protection visa when he first arrived in Australia;
b.the threats of harm by loan sharks have become more “eminent” than when he first arrived;
c.after he left Thailand his mother tried to repay the loan sharks but due to high interest rates “the principal has never been reduced”;
d.in around May 2014 “military coup in Thailand took control of country. [Lender A] has connection with Military forces in Thailand”;
e.after the military coup [Lender A] “has made more threats to my family. He demanded my family to disclose my current address and also demand all principals and interest to be repaid immediately. My family refused to disclose my address for fear of [Lender A] sending someone to harm me in Australia”;
f.the last time he called his family they told him not to return to Thailand since the illegal loan sharks, especially [Lender A], has been making threats to harm him if they see him in Thailand again.
The delegate’s decision record, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, reports the following:
a.The applicant attended an interview with the Department [in] May 2015 at which he stated the following:
i.he travelled to [Country 2] and [Country 3] before coming to Australia in 2012 in order to buy [products];
ii.he was informally married in 1997. He and his wife continued to cohabit until he left Thailand in 2012. His wife continues to live at his house in Thailand;
iii.his mother, [and other family members] all live in the applicant’s local area in Thailand, with the exception of one [Relative A] who lives around [distance] away;
iv.the applicant’s [Relative A] who lives [distance] away has now given operational function of his factory to one of her close friends before then saying, when it was put to him that at an interview in July 2014 he said his [Relative A] was looking after the factory, that both his [Relative A] and her friend are looking after the factory;
v.regarding who was the registered owner of the [product] factory when he ran it in Thailand he said it was him and the profit went to him. He said that you need five shareholders to register a business, and while his [relatives] were registered there was no financial integration. He then said that he cannot remember who were the registered owners of the factory and cannot answer the question;
vi.from 2010 to 2012 he borrowed a total of [amount] Baht from five people and that the most he owes to one person is [amount] baht, owed to [Lender B];
vii.regarding how much of his debt has been repaid since he came to Australia in 2012 he responded that he can’t explain how much he has paid back before then saying he has not repaid any of the debt;
viii.he said that the loan sharks now know he has sold his factory to his [Relative A] so they have not harmed her, but before he sold the business to her there was an attack on the factory and a bomb was placed on his [Relative A’s] car;
ix.the state cannot protect him in Thailand and one of the loan sharks has ties to the military and another has political connections;
x.he said he cannot relocate in Thailand as the loan sharks have “branches” throughout Thailand, while earlier saying they were local people he knew.
After his Department interview the applicant submitted to the Department: copies of his Australian bank statements; a personal reference from the proprietors of a [business] in [Town 2]; documents regarding his de-facto relationship in Thailand; bank statements from an unidentified Thai bank evidencing withdrawals and deposits between [dates in] March 2012 and [May] 2012; photos claimed to depict damage to the applicant’s factory inflicted in November 2014.
During his 2017 appearance the Tribunal explored in detail the applicant’s general circumstances and the claims summarised above. Multiple aspects of his oral evidence to the Tribunal, when assessed against the totality of the evidence advanced, impress the Tribunal as problematic and unconvincing in significant respects. The Tribunal’s detailed considerations are set out below.
The applicant told the Tribunal that all of the written material submitted in respect of his Protection visa application, including his Protection visa application form, was completed/submitted with the assistance of the RMA who continues to assist him and who accompanied him to his 2017 Appearance. He said that he is confident that all of the material provided with the assistance of that RMA is true and correct and contains no errors. He said that he did not start to use this RMA until 2014 and before that was being assisted by a different RMA who he knew nothing about and who did not use and interpreter to communicate with him. That RMA assisted him with his Student visa application and related MRT review, but not his Protection visa. He told the Tribunal that he has appeared previously before the MRT (differently constituted) where he communicated through the assistance of a Thai interpreter. That was in respect of the prior refusal of his Student visa application. This corresponds with the Tribunal’s own records.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his passport, a copy of which was provided to the Tribunal. The applicant told the Tribunal that the passport is a genuine passport issued to him by the Thai authorities in [2012]. The Tribunal observed that the stamps in that passport indicate that, shortly before he entered Australia he: travelled to [Country 3] and [Country 2] for a few days and returned to Thailand. Noting that those trips took place at a time when the applicant claims he was being pursued for money, death or torture by loan sharks in Thailand, the Tribunal asked about the purpose of those trips and why he returned to Thailand after them. His explanation did not directly address the concerns put to him. He offered that: before coming to Australia a friend of his [Relative A] recommended that before getting an Australian visa he should go to other countries first, so he travelled to [Country 2] and [Country 3] for two or three days each to get stamps in his passport; before those trips he had not travelled for a long time; while in [Country 2] and [Country 3] he bought things and holidayed; he went to both [Country 3] and [Country 2] with his [Relative A] and her friend and returned with them to Thailand on each occasion, leaving and re-entering Thailand voluntarily on those occasions shortly before departing Thailand for Australia.
The Tribunal asked the applicant to clarify whether he is saying that the purpose of his travels to [Country 2] and [Country 3] in the days prior to coming to Australia was for the purposes of increasing his chances of having an Australian visa granted to him. He responded that these are the reasons his [Relative A’s] friend gave him to travel to [Country 2] and [Country 3]. As explained to the applicant that, this explanation is difficult to accept as his Australian visa, as evidenced in his passport, was already granted [in] June 2012, before the trips to [Country 3] and [Country 2] took place. To this he offered only that, as far as he recalls, the whole process was organized at the same time, ie the applications for visas for Australia, [Country 2] and [Country 3]. As discussed with the applicant, it is difficult to reconcile his explanation for these trips with the earlier grant of his Australian visa. It is also difficult to reconcile his evidence that he chose to spend money on flights and accommodation to holiday and buy “things” in [Country 2] and [Country 3], return voluntarily to Thailand after those trips before finally departing Thailand for Australia, with his claims that his cash-flow problems in Thailand were such the he was struggling to pay his employees and to meet his repayments to the five loan sharks who were threatening him with serious and/or significant harm at that time. His evidence that he voluntarily returned to Thailand from both [Country 3] and [Country 2] in circumstances where he claimed to fear for his life in Thailand is particularly difficult to accept given that his passport reveals he already had an Australian visa at the time he opted to return to Thailand, and could have travelled directly to Australia from either [Country 3] or [Country 2]. His actions in returning voluntarily to Thailand do not impress the Tribunal as supportive or consistent with his claimed fears in Thailand at the time. The applicant was not able to offer any explanations for the above beyond stating that his [Relative A’s] friends planned these trips, including his returns to Thailand. However, as explained to the applicant, it does not impress the Tribunal as credible that his [Relative A] would want him to return to Thailand at that time if he truly faced a real chance of serious or significant harm there as he claims.

Regarding his addresses in Thailand he said that, immediately before coming to Australia he was living at two different address, one being the address of his factory and the other being the address of his other business at [Address 1]. The address he has given in his Protection visa application form is a third address located close to his factory and other business. It is his registered address which is recorded in his Thai ID card. That address is a property where his [Relative B] and [family] continue to live with the [mother]. He said that, other than residing at his factory and other business, he did not reside at any other address in Thailand. He said that he was never physically harmed at any time while living at those addresses in Thailand or at any other time or place. He said that his [Relative A] now occupies his prior address at [Address 1] and has done so since July 2012, when the applicant came to Australia. However, she changed it from a [product] shop to a [service business]. His [Relative A’s] friend [Ms A] has occupied the applicant’s factory premises since July 2012. [Ms A] took over the applicant’s business there but retained the same type of business as the applicant had run from that premises. Notably, the delegate’s decision record, a copy of which the applicant provided to the Tribunal, references the applicant telling the Department that he has sold his factory to his [Relative A], not to her friend [Ms A], and that his [Relative A] lives some [specified distance] away.
While claiming that his former businesses have been targeted for adverse attention, threats and damage by loan sharks, his evidence to the Tribunal indicated that his [Relative A] and [Ms A] have remained willing and able run the businesses since the applicant left Thailand, from the same premises as were occupied by the applicant up to 2012. This does not impress the Tribunal as consistent with the nature and intensity of the harm the applicant claims to fear in Thailand, or with the continued efforts of five unpaid loan sharks to pursue the applicant, including through his family/friends, for repayment of moneys owed to them by him. This concern is compounded further by the applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal that many of his family members were registered owners of the same businesses as the visa applicant ran in Thailand and in relation to which he owes money to loan sharks. Notwithstanding this, the applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal was that neither the applicant or his family were specifically targeted for harm or actually harmed in the years that he/they ran the businesses which had incurred debts to loan sharks before the applicant left Thailand, between 2002 and 2012.
Regarding the balance of his family circumstances in Thailand, the applicant gave the impression that his family holds some wealth and assets in Thailand. For instance he told the Tribunal that his [Relative B] owns and resides at the address which the applicant has listed as his registered address on his Thai ID card, as well as owning another property/building in Thailand. That [Relative B] works in retail, wholesale and as a [service provider]. He said his [Relative A] who took over his business at [Address 1] also owns the neighbouring premises at [Address 2] and operates them both as [service businesses]. His other [specified relatives] are married, one being married to a [person] who also runs a retail and wholesale [product] business. [The applicant’s] mother assists his siblings in their various businesses.
Regarding his contact with his family in Thailand he said that he speaks to his mother every week; initially, when he first came here, their contact was less frequent, but now when his mother has problems she calls him. When asked to explain what type of problems she calls him about he offered that if someone comes and looks for him and bothers her she will phone to warn him to be careful. He said his mother’s contact became more frequent in 2014. She would contact him every two or three months to tell him who came to bother and disrupt her.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if any of his family members in Thailand have had any problems since the applicant left for Australia in around July 2012. He responded that his [named relatives] and her friend [Ms A] had problems. He said that there was a car bomb but “nothing happened”. When asked to explain what he means by nothing happened but there was a car bomb he responded that he did not say “car bomb” and what he meant was that his [Relative A’s] car was smashed and the tyres pierced. Notably however, he is recorded in the Delegate’s decision record to have also told the Department during his interview that there was a bomb placed on or in his [Relative A’s] car.
In his evidence to the Tribunal he continued that, before his [Relative A’s] car was damaged there was a phone call to threaten his [Relative A] that this would happen. He said that this incident happened in 2013. Later in his 2017 Appearance he elaborated that the loan sharks now know he has sold his factory to his [Relative A] so they have not harmed her or her property, but before he sold the business to her there was an attack on the factory and a bomb was placed on his [Relative A’s] car. Regarding the attack on the car he said that it took place [in Town 1], close to his [Relative A’s] business. He said that the attackers phoned his [Relative A], asked where the applicant is and said they will attack her car. They then smashed the car windows and dented the wheels. His [Relative A] reported the incident to the police station but he has not asked her for a copy of the report. The police did “nothing”, despite the applicant telling the Tribunal that his family is well connected in the area. He added that the police were unable to do anything despite many people in the market witnessing the incident. He said that the phone call to his [Relative A] from loan sharks was a one-off incident, although he added that she did not tell him too much as she did not want him to worry. As put to the applicant; however, it appears inconsistent with his [Relative A’s] claimed reluctance to worry him that she would mention to him that her car was either bombed or damaged in connection with a threatening phone call regarding his whereabouts. It also impresses the Tribunal as difficult to accept that the applicant has not asked his [Relative A] for a police report in respect of this incident. On the evidence before it and in the context of the cumulative concerns detailed in the balance of the Tribunal’s reasons, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s [Relative A’s] car was damaged by loan sharks or anyone else seeking to harm the applicant for any reason.
Regarding the premises of the applicant’s former factory which the applicant told the Tribunal was taken over by a friend named [Ms A] in around July 2012, he said that the factory door was damaged by thugs linked to the loan sharks. He said this happened in early 2016. In elaborating he offered that the factory roof was damaged. It happened at night in the context of many phone calls being made to threaten his [relatives]. When asked what link [these relatives] had to the factory in 2016, some four years after the applicant claims he had passed the premises and business to [Ms A], he responded that [these relatives] live close to the factory premises. However he did not explain why this would link them to any intention to damage the factory premises in 2016. Later in the hearing the Tribunal asked the applicant about any addition detail he is aware of in respect of the claimed attack on a factory. The applicant offered that the fence was damaged and that this attack occurred in 2014, rather than 2016 as offered by him earlier. Rather than referring to phone calls to [these relatives] in connection with this claimed incident, he now said that there were many phone calls to the factory to the effect that if the applicant does not repay the money borrowed there would be a problem. After the hearing the applicant submitted to the Tribunal, though his RMA, photographs of a building claimed to be the damaged factory. However, there are no indicators in the photographs which identify the building as being linked in any way to the applicant. The Tribunal considers those photographs to be of no probative value and does not give them any weight in evidencing the truth of the applicant’s claim that his former factory premises was damaged by loan sharks in either 2014 or 2016, some two to four years after he claims to have transferred ownership and/or management of that business and premises to a third party. The Tribunal also notes with concern the lack of detail and the changing nature of the evidence provided by the applicant over time in respect of this incident and on the evidence before it is not satisfied that any such incident occurred.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether his family has encountered any adverse interference in Thailand other than that discussed above. He responded that the loan sharks keep returning to see his mother so the applicant told her to change her phone number. However, as discussed with the applicant, that would not appear to enhance her safety in any way if, as indicated by his own oral evidence, the loan sharks know where she lives and visit her there. He offered no substantive response to that concern.
The Tribunal explored with the applicant the timing of his entry into Australia, the purpose of him coming to Australia and what he has been doing in his time here. He responded that he entered [in] July 2012 on a [temporary] visa which was valid for three months. He came here because he had “nowhere to go” and he could not face his debts in Thailand. When asked what he was planning on doing in Australia when he first came here he said that first of all he needed to “sneak away” from Thailand. Then he wanted to look into what he could do in Australia. He also wanted to let his family in Thailand deal with his debt for him as he could not face it. He did not make any mention at this point to his written claim that he came to Australia to “get additional income to clear debt”.
Regarding what he has done in over four years in Australia he responded that: he did not know anyone in Australia initially so he stayed at [a location]; his [Relative A] in Thailand knew someone in Australia who owned a [specified] business in Australia. When asked to tell the Tribunal more generally how he has spent his time in Australia he responded that he was referred to a RMA when his [temporary] visa ceased; the RMA told him he needs to study; he started to study [subject] in [City 1]; while he completed some of the courses, when he was around half way through the course he received letters telling him he had to stop studying; he did not have a Student visa when he was studying, only a Bridging visa; he applied for a Student visa but it was not granted.
The Tribunal asked whether he has worked in Australia. He responded that he has, but “not much”, around a day or two in a [business]. He said he has an Australian bank account, however he did not provide the Tribunal with any comprehensive bank statements identifying deposits or withdrawals to any Australian or other account held in the applicant’s name in his over four years in Australia. Regarding why he has only worked one or two days a week he responded that he was told he cannot work on a Student visa and he did not know the law. However his evidence does not reveal him to have ever held a Student visa in Australia. When asked if he has permission to work now he responded that he does not. Regarding his expenses in Australia, including rent, he said he covers those expenses through money his family sends him from Thailand, adding that they send him around [approximate amount] Thai Baht. He did not say how frequently they do this, but said that his [Relative A] sends money through a friend. He clarified that he tells his mother that he needs money and his [Relative A] sends it.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he did not apply for a Protection Visa until [Aug] 2014, having entered Australia in July 2012 fearing threats to his life and safety in Thailand. He responded that he did not know anyone at the time and his first RMA did not explain this to him. The applicant told the Tribunal that he did not explain to his first RMA that he had fears of harm in Thailand as he did not think it was necessary, and the RMA did not ask him for the reason he wants to stay in Australia. However the Tribunal considers it concerning that the applicant did not offer this information to his RMA or the Department before 2014 given that he identifies his debts in Thailand and his fears of harm in connection with those debts as his primary reasons for coming to Australia in 2012. The applicant also told the Tribunal that the RMA who helped with his Student visa application and review did not use an interpreter, however the applicant also said that the MRT provided him with an interpreter when he appeared before it in respect of his Student visa refusal [in] February 2014.
Towards the end of his 2017 Appearance, after the detail of his claims and evidence had been explored in detail, the Tribunal put to the applicant adverse information pursuant to section 424AA of the Act arising out of his MRT review of his Student visa refusal in respect of which he is recorded to have appeared before the Tribunal with the assistance of an interpreter in the Thai and English languages [in] February 2014, and in respect of which his then RMA provided written submissions dated [in] January 2014 and supporting documentation. The Tribunal explained that subject to his comments or response the information would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review, and advised the applicant that he has a right to request additional time to comment or respond which will only be given if the Tribunal considers that he reasonably needs additional time to comment on or respond to the information.
Specifically, the Tribunal put to the applicant the following information:
a.the relevant issue for the MRT in respect of his Student visa refusal was whether there were exceptional reasons for the grant of the Student visa;
b.written submissions dated [in] January 2014 made by the applicant’s then RMA to the MRT in respect of his Student visa refusal referred to: the visa applicant hoping to return to Thailand to open a new business; the applicant having left AU$[specified amount] with his mother in Thailand which he has the intention of using to build his business, and the applicant being “well established in Thailand”;
c.the written submissions made by the applicant’s then RMA to the MRT in respect of his Student visa refusal do not make any reference to the applicant’s debts or any fears of harm in Thailand or to him having any problems of any kind in Thailand;
d.when the applicant appeared before the Tribunal [in] February 2014 in respect of the same Student visa refusal review application he is recorded as: having communicated with the Tribunal with the assistance of an interpreter in the Thai and English languages; having given evidence and information relevant to whether there were exceptional reasons for the grant of the Student visa, a matter broad enough for the applicant to mention any fears of harm in Thailand; yet having made no mention to any debts or fears of harm in Thailand . The MRT’s decision in respect of that review is dated [in] February 2014.
The Tribunal explained that the above information is relevant to the review because the applicant claims to have had fears of harm, including death, from loan sharks in Thailand since before he came to Australia in 2012, yet despite having had an opportunity to identify any “exceptional reasons” relevant to the grant of his Student visa in 2014, a criterion broad enough to at least prompt mention of any consideration an applicant may consider relevant, the applicant did not make any mention of owing debts to loan sharks or to fearing for his life or safety in Thailand. The Tribunal also put to the applicant that the information detailed in paragraph 33 above is also relevant as it indicates that he left a significant sum of money with his mother to be invested towards the applicant’s future in Thailand, which does not appear consistent with his claims to have been unable to make repayments of debts owed to loan sharks.
The Tribunal explained that, if it relies on the above information it might not be satisfied that he is being truthful in respect of central aspects of his Protection visa claims, including his financial situation and his claims to owe large debts to loan sharks and/or to face or to have ever faced threats to his life or safety at the hands of loan sharks in Thailand. The Tribunal explained that the ultimate consequence of this would be that the Tribunal would not be satisfied that his evidence is reliable or that he faces a real chance of serious or significant harm in Thailand for any of the reasons claimed or arising on the evidence.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he would like to request addition time to respond, in respect of which he would need to identify why he thinks he reasonably needs additional time to respond to the information put to him, or whether he would like to respond immediately. Not allowing the applicant to respond the applicant’s RMA immediately interjected in the Thai language. When asked to speak in English or to pause to allow the interpreter to inform the Tribunal what she is saying she responded in English that she wants to consult with the visa applicant and make a written submission. She added that she does not want the applicant to say anything before she has time to consult with him. The Tribunal reminded the RMA that the right to request further time to respond or to opt to respond immediately is a right of the applicant, not the RMA. Despite the Tribunal insisting that the RMA allows the applicant to state his preference the RMA continued to interject. Ultimately the applicant stated that he would like more time to respond. Noting the confusion and anxiety that the RMA’s interjection may have caused the applicant, the Tribunal allowed the applicant further time to consider the information and provide a written response.
The written response came to the Tribunal in the form of multiple emails attaching largely untranslated documents as well as copies of documents and information which the Tribunal had already given the RMA, including: an audio recording of the applicant’s appearance before the MRT [in] February 2014; written submissions dated [in] January 2014 provided to the MRT by his former RMA in respect of his Student visa review application; supporting documents provided by the applicant’s former RMA in respect of his Student visa refusal. The applicant’s current RMA also provided written submissions in response to the concerns put to the applicant under section 424AA of the Act.
The current RMA”s written submissions were sent to the Tribunal by email dated 3 February 2017. Regarding the information put to the applicant under section 424AA of the Act the RMA offered that:
·     the applicant has instructed that he did not tell his previous RMA that he left $[specified amount] with his mother. His former RMA did not read back to the applicant the submission dated [in] January 2014 in which that claim is contained, nor did he use a Thai interpreter to communicate with the applicant. The Member who heard the matter in respect of the applicant’s Student visa refusal did not directly ask the applicant about the $[specified amount];
·     the Student visa hearing focussed on exceptional reasons, not on protection claims, so there was “no opportunity for my client to answer any fear to return Thailand since there has no question asked about it.” The RMA attaches a copy of the audio recording of the appearance to evidence this (a copy of which was initially sent to her by the current Tribunal);
·     the applicant’s total bank balance when he left Thailand for Australia was around $[smaller amount], not $[specified amount]. She attached Thai bank statements to evidence this, however the Tribunal cannot know whether those statements represent all the accounts held or money possessed by the applicant or his mother at the time he left Thailand for Australia.

While the above submissions attempt to explain why there may have been some inaccuracies or omissions in the submissions made by the applicant’s former RMA in respect of the review of his Student visa refusal, they fail to address why a person fearing harm in Thailand for the reasons he now claims would not have proactively informed the Tribunal himself, with the assistance of the interpreter provided at his hearing [in] February 2014, of his debts and/or fears of harm in Thailand in the context of explaining the “exceptional reasons” for grant of his Student visa. That he did not compounds the cumulatively significant concerns the Tribunal has regarding the truth of those claims.
Notably, the post-hearing material provided by the applicant’s current RMA include documents purporting to evidence at least part of a loan shark arrangement between the applicant and one of his creditors, identified as [Lender B]. The documents provided include loan agreements, a certificate of title regarding disputed land and a court document.
The applicant’s written claims regarding [Lender B] are generally that: from 2010 to 2012 he borrowed a total of [amount] Baht from 5 people and that the most he owes to one person is [amount] Baht, owed to [Lender B]; [Lender B] would visit the applicant’s mother knowing that if the money wasn’t repaid he would “exercise the power of mortgagee and transfer the title into his name”[9]. In his oral evidence to the Tribunal he said that [amount] Baht remains owing to [Lender B]; he borrowed two separate sums from [Lender B], the first giving [Lender B] title deeds to the applicant’s property as security and the other being just cash borrowed. When the Tribunal put to the applicant that, in relation to the sum secured by title deeds, it would seem that if the applicant defaulted on the loan [Lender B] would be entitled to the property securing the loan. The applicant responded that this is correct but added that [Lender B] is a friend of the applicant’s mother so he has not yet sought to transfer title of the property to himself. The Tribunal put to the applicant that if his mother’s friendship with [Lender B] has meant that [Lender B] is not so much as willing to pursue his entitlement to the property securing his loan, it is difficult to accept that [Lender B] has any intention to harm the applicant in any way in respect of the moneys owing to him. To this the applicant offered that the applicant’s family initially paid on time but then they were unable to pay and the friendship declined. However, this does not alter the applicant’s evidence that, to date, despite the applicant defaulting on a loan which allows [Lender B] to claim title to his property, [Lender B] has not taken that course of action due to his friendship with the applicant’s mother.
[9] Ibid, paragraph 19
When the above concerns were put to the applicant by the Tribunal again the applicant told the Tribunal firstly that [Lender B] is pursuing court action against the applicant’s mother and [Relative A]. He then altered this evidence, offering that his mother and [Relative A] are suing [Lender B]. When asked about the basis for their legal action against [Lender B] he responded that [Lender B] wanted the applicant’s [Relative A] to transfer land to him but the applicant’s [Relative A] disagreed as the land is not under the applicant’s name and is owned by her.
However, the documentation submitted post-hearing by the applicant’s RMA does not support the applicant’s claims of [Lender B] being a loan shark who is threatening the applicant or his family with harm in any way. Perhaps the most insightful documents provided to the Tribunal by the applicant’s RMA are the ones headed “Loan Agreement Pursuant to New Code” dated [in] January 2012[10] and a Thai Court Judgement dated [in] September 2013 naming the applicant and his [Relative A] as defendants and “[Ms B]”, described in the RMA’s submissions as an investor of [Lender B], as the Plaintiff. Contrary to the applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal that [Lender B], a loan shark to whom he owes money, is being sued by the applicant’s mother and [Relative A], the Court document provided clearly indicates that the applicant and his [Relative A] were sued by an agent of [Lender B].
[10] Folio 160 of the Tribunal file
The detail of the Court Judgement submitted does not support the applicant’s claim that [Lender B] is a loan shark. Instead it suggests that the applicant borrowed money from [Lender B] pursuant to a loan agreement with an agreed rate of interest which the court did not find to be illegal, and agreed assets identified as security for the moneys borrowed by the applicant from [Lender B]. The judgement also refers to other money borrowed by the applicant’s mother and [Relative A] in Thailand. It reveals a complex set of loan agreements involving the applicant’s family and [Lender B]. It details a dispute over the sale by the applicant to his [Relative A] of his only piece of land which was [Lender B’s] security for the money borrowed, as well as arguments that the sale price was considered significantly lower than market value and comprised an act of deception by the applicant and his [Relative A] against the interests of [Lender B]. That argument appears to have been rejected by the Court. However, the Court judgement concludes by finding that the applicant must pay [Lender B] the sum of [amount] Thai Baht with an interest rate of [number]% per year commencing after the date of the lawsuit’s commencement which is identified as [being in] September 2012, until the debt is fully paid[11]. The court judgement, while supporting the visa applicant’s claim that he has outstanding debts in Thailand, does not suggest in any way that he has borrowed from loan sharks or that he has been threatened with harm by them in any way.
[11] Folios 150-151 of the Tribunal file
The differences between the applicant’s own accounts of his debts and the detail of the documents provided, when assessed in the context of all the evidence advanced and the cumulative concerns detailed in the balance of this decision, leave the Tribunal in significant doubt regarding the general reliability of the claims and evidence advanced by and/or for the applicant.
The Tribunal’s concerns are compounded by the following. As discussed with the applicant during his Tribunal hearing, for many aspects of his claims where supporting documentation should be available, documentation has not been provided without any plausible explanation as to why. For example the applicant referred to police reports made by his family or friends in respect of damage to his former factory and to his [Relative A’s] car. Despite his family remaining in Thailand, such documents have not been provided.
While the Tribunal is mindful that the applicant submitted a number of translated and untranslated documents after his 2017 appearance, many of those documents were handwritten lists purporting to record moneys paid by the applicant to various creditors. However no detailed explanation was provided regarding what those documents actually record nor how they were prepared. Further, being handwritten, the Tribunal has no way of verifying their authenticity as contemporaneous notes kept by the applicant to evidence his repayments to loan sharks, as he claims them to be. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives such documents no weight in evidencing any aspect of the applicant’s claims.
A further concern discussed with the applicant is that, on his own evidence he had borrowed money and was defaulting on various loan repayments to loan sharks since around 2002, yet he remained in Thailand for around ten more years and was never harmed in any way. He agreed that he was never harmed but said that this was because he was paying them on time by opening another business and borrowing money from his [Relative A]. Despite this he claimed that he was threatened on one occasion by [Lender A] who said that he is connected to the Thai military so the applicant should be careful. When asked how he knows [Lender A] is connected to the Thai military and what he knows of the nature of that connection he responded that every time he borrowed more money from [Lender A] it would be in a [venue] and there would be people around him in military uniform. He said he did not know the names of the people who came or how [Lender A] knew them or how [Lender A] was connected to the military more generally. As explained to the applicant, his claims regarding [Lender A’s] connections to the military appear very general and speculative.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why, if his debts were so extensive, he did not try to sell either his [product] business or his factory while he was still in Thailand. To this he responded that he was enthusiastic and committed to his businesses and thought he could handle the situation. However, as discussed with the applicant, at some point in 2012, his evidence is that he, together with his [Relative A], decided he should leave those businesses and commitments in Thailand, holiday in [Country 3] and [Country 2] and come to Australia. The Tribunal asked why, at that point, he did not consider selling his businesses in Thailand to repay his debts. He responded again that he couldn’t sell his business as he had built them up himself and thought they would “take off”, but then the daily labour rates increased which he did not anticipate. This did not address the concern the Tribunal had put to the applicant as to why he did not consider selling his businesses in Thailand before coming to Australia in order to settle the debts he has claimed to accrue. As explained to the applicant, his claimed personal commitment and attachment to his businesses in Thailand does not appear consistent with his actions which saw him leave those businesses in debt in Thailand before holidaying in [Country 3] and [Country 2] and coming to Australia for a protracted stay. Further, on his own evidence he has done nothing while in Australia to try to assist those businesses or repay his debts. To this he offered only that he was disappointed and exhausted when he left Thailand and that he is still hoping to find a solution in Australia to help him “exit” from the situation, such as looking into business opportunities in Australia. When asked what specific steps he had taken in that regard he referred only to ruling out a [similar] business in Australia, but [another area] could be a good business here. Despite his evidence that he has been looking for strategies in Australia to alleviate his financial concerns in Thailand, he told the Tribunal that he has not sent any money to anyone in Thailand to repay any of his outstanding debts to loan sharks. His evidence on these matters impressed the Tribunal as very general and lacking in detail and thought and did not support his claims that he has been seeking ways in Australia to exit a situation in Thailand in which he faces a real chance of serious or significant harm.
A further concern regarding the applicant’s evidence is this. While the applicant’s evidence regarding his partners in his business ventures in Thailand was changing and vague, the general theme of his evidence was that his businesses were run as family businesses with his [relatives] and/or mother forming part of the registered businesses. Yet, when asked, he could not explain why he alone, rather than any of his other family members who remain in Thailand and on his own evidence are financially well-off, has been singled out for harm by loan sharks.
Also discussed with the applicant was the following. The Tribunal asked the applicant why his [Relative A] and [her] friend have agreed to look after his businesses and/or run their own businesses from the same premises the applicant ran his businesses in Thailand, if they were and continue to be the focus of adverse interest from loan sharks to whom the applicant owes money. While telling the Department, as detailed in the delegate’s decision record a copy of which he provided to the Tribunal, that his [Relative A] lives [distance] from the area in which she runs two [service businesses], being the premises where the applicant ran his [product] business, he said that his family was born in the area and cannot run away. He said that his [Relative A] and mother are hoping that he can run a business from Australia which will help them run their businesses in Thailand. He said that his family is not aware of his situation in Australia and think that he is looking after himself here. However, earlier he told the Tribunal that his mother and [Relative A] often send him money when he tells them he needs it, which does not appear consistent with his evidence that his family thinks he is looking after himself in Australia. While not relevant or determinative of any specific issue in respect of the review, this evidence further compounds the Tribunal’s concerns regarding the reliability of the applicant’s evidence regarding more general aspects of his circumstances.
While the cumulative concerns detailed in the totality of the Tribunal’s considerations are significant and lead the Tribunal to be unable to be satisfied of the truth of central aspects of the applicant’s claims and evidence, the Tribunal also notes that other aspects of the applicant’s claims and evidence regarding his business history in Thailand remained consistent and detailed over time. On the basis of that consistent evidence the Tribunal accepts that the applicant had business interests in Thailand before coming to Australia and that he incurred debts there which he struggled to repay. However, in the context of all the evidence advanced and the cumulative considerations and concerns detailed above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant borrowed money from loan sharks or that he has outstanding debts to loan sharks in Thailand as he has claimed. On the evidence advanced the Tribunal cannot be and is not satisfied as to the extent of the debts owed by the applicant, whether he owed/owes them alone or together with his family members who remain in Thailand, or how much of those debts, if any, remains outstanding. The Tribunal is not satisfied that any threats or attempts have been made to harm the applicant in any way in respect of any sums he or his family may owe in Thailand, and is not satisfied that his former factory was damaged by anyone seeking to intimidate or harm the applicant, or that his [Relative A’s] car was damaged by anyone seeking to harm or intimidate the applicant. The Tribunal is also not satisfied that [Lender A] has military connections which he has threatened to use to harm the applicant in the past or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Despite accepting that the applicant has debts in Thailand which he must re-pay either individually and/or jointly with family and/or former business partners in Thailand, as the Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the evidence advanced, how much of those debts have been paid off by the applicant and/or his self-described, well-off and connected family in Thailand, the Tribunal cannot be and is not satisfied on the evidence advanced that the extent or nature of the debts the applicant owes currently or in the reasonably foreseeable future will impact in any way on his capacity to subsist or that they otherwise give rise to a real chance of serious or significant harm to the applicant in Thailand in the reasonably foreseeable future. On the totality of the evidence before it the Tribunal cannot be and is not satisfied that the applicant faces in Thailand, in the reasonably foreseeable future, a real chance of serous or significant harm in Thailand as contemplated by the relevant law, for any of the reasons claimed or arising on the evidence.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a).
Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa). The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).
There is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies s.36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s.36(2)(a) or (aa) and who holds a protection visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy the criterion in s.36(2).
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection visa.
Suhad Kamand
Member

RELEVANT LAW
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s.36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (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, the applicant 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.
Refugee criterion
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 under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (together, the Refugees Convention, or the Convention).
Australia is a party to the Refugees Convention and generally speaking, has protection obligations in respect of people who are refugees as defined in Article 1 of the Convention. Article 1A(2) relevantly defines a refugee as any person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
Sections 91R and 91S of the Act qualify some aspects of Article 1A(2) for the purposes of the application of the Act and the Regulations to a particular person.
There are four key elements to the Convention definition. First, an applicant must be outside his or her country.
Second, an applicant must fear persecution. Under s.91R(1) of the Act persecution must involve ‘serious harm’ to the applicant (s.91R(1)(b)), and systematic and discriminatory conduct (s.91R(1)(c)). Examples of ‘serious harm’ are set out in s.91R(2) of the Act. The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated or uncontrollable by the authorities of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution.
Further, persecution implies an element of motivation on the part of those who persecute for the infliction of harm. People are persecuted for something perceived about them or attributed to them by their persecutors.
Third, the persecution which the applicant fears must be for one or more of the reasons enumerated in the Convention definition - race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The phrase ‘for reasons of’ serves to identify the motivation for the infliction of the persecution. The persecution feared need not be solely attributable to a Convention reason. However, persecution for multiple motivations will not satisfy the relevant test unless a Convention reason or reasons constitute at least the essential and significant motivation for the persecution feared: s.91R(1)(a) of the Act.

Fourth, an applicant’s fear of persecution for a Convention reason must be a ‘well-founded’ fear. This adds an objective requirement to the requirement that an applicant must in fact hold such a fear. A person has a ‘well-founded fear’ of persecution under the Convention if they have genuine fear founded upon a ‘real chance’ of being persecuted for a Convention stipulated reason. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even though the possibility of the persecution occurring is well below 50 per cent.
In addition, an applicant must be unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to avail himself or herself of the protection of his or her country or countries of nationality or, if stateless, unable, or unwilling because of his or her fear, to return to his or her country of former habitual residence. The expression ‘the protection of that country’ in the second limb of Article 1A(2) is concerned with external or diplomatic protection extended to citizens abroad. Internal protection is nevertheless relevant to the first limb of the definition, in particular to whether a fear is well-founded and whether the conduct giving rise to the fear is persecution.
Whether an applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations is to be assessed upon the facts as they exist when the decision is made and requires a consideration of the matter in relation to the reasonably foreseeable future.
Complementary protection criterion
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 a protection 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 the applicant 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’).
‘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. ‘Cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment’, ‘degrading treatment or punishment’, and ‘torture’, are further defined in s.5(1) of the Act.
There are certain circumstances in which there is taken not to be a real risk that an applicant will suffer significant harm in a country. These arise where it would be reasonable for the applicant to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; where the applicant could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm; or where the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the applicant personally: s.36(2B) of the Act.
Section 499 Ministerial Direction
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.56, made under s.499 of the Act, the Tribunal is required to take account of policy guidelines prepared by the Department of Immigration –PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Complementary Protection Guidelines and PAM3 Refugee and humanitarian - Refugee Law Guidelines – and any country information assessment 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.

[2017] AATA 798

18 April 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness