1510043 (Refugee)

1510043 (Refugee) [2017] AATA 592 (30 March 2017)
DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER:  1510043
COUNTRY OF REFERENCE:                  Thailand
MEMBER:James Jolliffe
DATE:30 March 2017
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.

Statement made on 30 March 2017 at 9:49am
CATCHWORDS
Refugee – Protection Visa – Thailand – Political opinion – Harboured Redshirts leader – Arrest warrants – Credibility issues – Inconsistencies
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1) 36, 65, 424AA, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
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

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicants Protection visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicants who claim to be citizens of Thailand , applied for the visas [in] August 2014 and the delegate refused to grant the visas [in] July 2015. Only the first named applicant had initially made specific claims for protection and the second named applicant initially sought protection on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as the first named applicant. The second named applicant subsequently filed her own protection Visa application in May 2015 after being directed to do so by the Department delegate. The Tribunal notes that the second named applicant’s claims should have been assessed in accordance with the legislative changes that came into effect from16 December 2014. The Department delegate does not appear to have made a decision in relation to the second named applicant’s protection Visa application lodged in May 2015 and in those circumstances the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to that application. The delegate only made a decision in relation to the first named applicant’s protection Visa application (and the second named applicant’s claims as a member of the same family unit as the first named applicant).
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 23 March 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the daughter of the applicants, [Ms A], who is a permanent resident in Australia. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Thai and English languages. The applicants were not represented by registered migration agent.
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.
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.
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’).
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.
CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The Tribunal has before it the Department and Tribunal files relating to the applicants together with relevant information from a variety of sources.
The issue in this case is the applicants claimed to fear harm from the Thai military and Thai police on the basis of a claimed political opinion. That opinion also included a claim that the applicants hid from authorities the second named applicant's [relative]
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed
The first named applicant lodged his protection Visa application in August 2014. In that application he provided his personal details and said that he had been born in Thailand. He said he was of the Buddhist faith. He said he married in January 1986 and he did not claim that he had any right to enter or reside temporarily or permanently in any other country apart from Thailand. He said he arrived in Australia in May 2014 and had been issued with a Thai passport in [2014]. He came to Australia on a [temporary] visa. He claimed to have lived at the same address in Thailand between 1962 and May 2014. He claimed to have completed [number] years of schooling in Thailand. He claimed to have worked as [occupation] in Thailand. He said that he had worked at a [workplace] doing [occupation] in Thailand between 1998 and 2014.
He provided reasons as to why he was seeking protection in Australia in his application and said he was “scared they going to arrest me and my wife. I have to flee Thailand to Australia.” He claimed that he feared being arrested and beaten and he said he feared harm from the police and military in Thailand. He claimed that he had a discussion with friends about the military control of the government in Thailand and he said he did not support that regime. He claimed that the next day some friends told him someone would come and arrest him and he was scared. He said he believed that the military is “dictator government” and said he and his wife had to go in to hiding. In documents provided in support of his protection application he referred to having a daughter who lived in Australia and a son who was living in Thailand. The first named applicant also completed an application lodged in August 2014 in respect to “persons included in this application and family composition” and listed the second named applicant as a member of the same family unit in terms of his protection Visa application.
The second named applicant lodged a protection Visa in May 2015 as a result of being requested to do so by the Department delegate (see page 4 of the delegate’s decision record). However the Tribunal on its assessment of the decision record finds that the delegate made no decision in relation to the second named applicant’s protection Visa application and proceeded to only make a decision in relation to the first named applicant’s protection Visa application with the second named applicant seeking protection as a member of the same family unit as the first named applicant in that application. In those circumstances the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to the separate protection Visa application lodged by the second named applicant in May 2015. The Tribunal notes that the delegate’s decision record makes no assessment of the second named applicant's protection Visa application in terms of the legislative requirements that apply to protection visa applications lodged on or after 16 December 2014.
The second named applicant’s protection Visa application raises issues in relation to the claims made by the first named applicant. In her protection Visa application the second named applicant claimed that she had been born in [year] in Thailand and that she did not have a right to enter or reside either temporarily or permanently in any other country apart from Thailand. She claimed that she was married. She claimed that she had a daughter living in Australia. She claimed that she had arrived in Australia on a [temporary] Visa in May 2014. She claimed that she was issued with her Thai passport in [2012]. She claimed that she had never worked either in Australia or in Thailand. She claimed that she had completed [school] level education in Thailand. She claimed that she was under investigation or had criminal charges pending against for an offence of “owing money” in Thailand. She provided reasons in support of her protection Visa application and in summary she said that she had followed her husband “for fear that they going to take him away. Because he does like military government. He said it is dictatorship. My husband is people of Thailand. He like democratic government.” She referred to a fear that she and her husband “will be taken away and will be disappeared”. She claimed that she had gone into hiding for four days in Bangkok before she came to Australia. She claimed that she feared that she would be subject to beatings and suffer inhuman treatment and be raped and that she would disappear if she returned to Thailand. She claimed that she would not receive protection in Thailand because she and her husband had no money. She claimed that she would be taken away as soon as she returned from Thailand. She referred to a letter from the police attached to application. The Tribunal notes that the Department file contains arrest warrants from a Thai court for both the first and second named applicants. In relation to the first named applicant the offences listed in the arrest warrant referred to a conspiracy “with others to fraud the victim for overseas employment and swindle the amount of [amount] baht and then escape”. The arrest warrant in relation to the second named applicant also alleges that she conspired with others “to fraud the victim for overseas employment and swindle the amount of [amount] baht and escape”. Both applicants provided their Thai passports and Thai national identity cards to the Department in support of the first named applicant’s protection Visa application.
The Tribunal also notes a document/letter addressed to [(the applicants)] from “[Mr B]” which tells the applicants “do not ever come back to Thailand. The NOPMC has been trying to locate anyone under my sponsorship. They will grant loosely accuse all of my [relatives]. I was detained at the camp. Couple days after they set me free, I was nearly died getting shot by war weapons. It was on the news every channel. Now they hand me another lese majeste charge. Now [Applicant 2]’s son is with me. I fled to the neighbouring country. We just go to somewhere. Do not worry because I am not happy living in Thailand where the military rules over. Do not ever return. It is dangerous. The military government, they dare to act and they torture anyone who thinks differently”. There is also what appears to be a media article (unidentified) which in summary refers to “[Mr B]” being shot [while] he was having dinner in his house. The report, in part, refers to the police investigation into the incident.
A department delegate declined to grant the applicants protection visas and did not accept that the applicants were entitled to protection in Australia.
TRIBUNAL HEARING
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 23 March 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. They confirmed their names and personal details to the Tribunal. They provided the Tribunal with their Thai passports. The Tribunal confirmed that it was proceeding on the basis that the first named applicant with the applicant before the Tribunal and that the second named applicant was seeking protection on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as the first named applicant. The Tribunal also noted that the second named applicant had also made claims to the Department in terms of seeking protection in Australia. The first named applicant confirmed that he was seeking protection on the basis of his political opinion and he also claimed in relation to that issue that he feared harm on the basis of a family association with a "red shirts" leader in Thailand (his [relative] who is also known as [name] but whose name is [Mr B]). The first and second named applicants claimed to fear harm if they returned to Thailand on the basis that they claimed that they had hidden [Mr B] in their home in Thailand when he was hiding from authorities. The Tribunal asked the applicants a number of questions about their claims to fear harm on the basis of having a political opinion that was based on the claim that the first named applicant supported democracy in Thailand and had been a supporter of the former Thai Prime Minister and had provided a hiding place for the first named applicant’s [relative]. That evidence will be referred to further in these reasons.
The Tribunal received oral evidence from the applicant's daughter, [Ms A]. [Ms A] told the Tribunal that she was a permanent resident of Australia and that she had come to Australia in 2005. The Tribunal noted that it had not received a statement or an outline of a statement from her and asked her a number of questions to ascertain her knowledge about the applicant's claims to fear harm in Thailand. She said that the applicants had lived with her initially in [city] when they had arrived in Australia in 2014 but that they had then left her home and had only returned to live with her the day before the Tribunal hearing.
She told the Tribunal that she has [children] and her parents helped her with childcare. She said her parents could not return to Thailand as there was an arrest warrant in place for her father and he could not return. In responding to Tribunal questions about the applicant's claims she said that her mother's [relative], the witnesses [([Mr B])] had been involved in political issues in Thailand and that people in Thailand were looking for him and her parents. The Tribunal asked who was looking for [Mr B] and her parents and she said "police and soldiers". She said [Mr B] had been hiding at her home in Thailand and that her parents had been hiding [Mr B]. The Tribunal asked how the witness knew about these issues and she said that there had been stories in the media in Thailand and that she had also spoken with [Mr B] on two occasions. She said that [Mr B] had said that unless there was a necessity to return to Thailand her parent should not return to Thailand. She claimed that [Mr B] had said that he was fleeing to [another country]. She told the Tribunal initially that [Mr B] had been shot by soldiers about 2014 but then told the Tribunal that she had last spoken to [Mr B] in 2015 and she thought that he had been shot in 2015 and not 2014.
The Tribunal asked the witness why [Mr B] was wanted by the police and military in Thailand and she said it was because he had been leading protests in Bangkok for the red shirts in 2013. She said he was a leader at a regional or provincial or village level for the red-shirts. She told the Tribunal that she was not sure about which level he was a leader and thought perhaps it was at the village level. The Tribunal asked about her knowledge of the redshirts and their activities. She said that everyone in her family's village had been a redshirt and that their aim was to protect democracy and to demonstrate in support of democracy. The Tribunal asked her about the aims of the redshirt organisation. She said that they stood for elections being from the people and they stood for fairness and democracy. She said she had not been a member of the redshirts but she liked them but she also said that she had not been involved in politics in Thailand. She said she had last returned to Thailand in 2013. She said she visited her parents in Thailand in 2013 and she told the Tribunal that she did not think that her parents were facing any problems in Thailand when she visited them in 2013.
The Tribunal asked her about her knowledge of her parent's claims for protection. She said her knowledge of their claims was based on what her parents had told her and the two conversations with [Mr B]. She was asked if she had a knowledge about the background to the arrest warrants that had been issued in relation to her parents. She said initially that the warrants were not related to political issues but related to " liabilities" but then told the Tribunal that the warrants related to "politics and liabilities".
The Tribunal asked her to explain that comment and she said she had seen the warrants. The Tribunal read the terms of the warrants to the witness and the Tribunal noted that there was no mention of politics in the warrants in relation to her parents. The Tribunal asked the witness further questions about the claim and she said that there were two issues involved in relation to the warrants and one related to her parents having hidden [Mr B] but she said there was no evidence of that but that there was only reference to the offences named in the warrants. She said that she and her parents had given the evidence to a lawyer and to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The Tribunal noted that there were only the warrants on the file and no other evidence was referred to and the witness said that she had given the material/information to a legal aid lawyer and gave that lawyers first name. The Tribunal asked what other documents had been provided to the lawyer and to the Department and the Tribunal eventually ascertained that the witness was referring to the letter from [Mr B] to her parents and the report about [Mr B]’s shooting in Thailand. Those documents have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The witness said that she was not aware where the documents had come from and that her parents had obtained them but she thought the documents had been forwarded by her [brother] in Thailand. She said it was too long ago and was now unsure of the details. The witness had nothing further to tell the Tribunal.
The first named applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal. He claimed he was at risk of harm because he was fond of the democratic system in Thailand and he said he feared harm because of the military coup in Thailand. He claimed that he had a political opinion of supporting democracy in Thailand and that placed him at risk. He claimed he was a supporter of a former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and that he also supported the redshirt movement in Thailand. He described himself as a “lay person” in terms of political activity in Thailand but he claimed he supported the redshirts. He said the former prime minister had introduced advancements to Thailand and he supported him. He said that he had not been a member of any political party in Thailand but claimed that he was a redshirt. He claimed that his activities in support of the redshirt movement had involved driving redshirt supporters to rallies. He claimed to fear harm from the Thai military and higher ranking police officers who he claimed sided with “the other party”. He told the Tribunal during the hearing that he would be at risk in Thailand for political reasons because there was “no election, no democracy”. He told the Tribunal that he had never suffered any harm in Thailand and had never been arrested in Thailand. He said that the warrants that had been issued for his arrest and his wife’s arrest had been issued after they had come to Australia. He said he had obtained his passport in Thailand without difficulty and had left Thailand without difficulty to come to Australia. He confirmed that he had worked as a [occupation] in Thailand. He said he still had a son in Thailand. He told the Tribunal that he had come to Australia because his daughter lives here and he wanted to visit and he was also seeking fairness by coming to Australia. He told the Tribunal that his daughter had completed his protection Visa application on his instructions.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had come to Australia [in] May 2014 and according to a Human Rights Watch document(world report 2015: Thailand, events of 2014) referred to by the Tribunal the military coup in Thailand had [occurred] on 22 May 2014. He confirmed to the Tribunal that he had previously had a Visa to travel to Australia in 2013 and he told the Tribunal that he did not come on that occasion because he was not ready to come to Australia and his son was still [in] Thailand. He was asked about the dates of the protests that he claimed he had driven redshirt protesters to in Thailand. He said he could not recall the dates of the protests. He was asked about his claims that he had hidden [Mr B] in his home in Thailand and he said that occurred in May 2014 about a week before the applicants came to Australia. He claimed that the military and the police were looking for [Mr B]. He told the Tribunal that the military and the police had not come to his home looking for [Mr B]. He said [Mr B] had told him that he was going to go to [other countries] to avoid Thai authorities. The applicant said that he had hidden [Mr B] in his family home in [his home] province which was about [number] km from Bangkok. He said he hid [Mr B] for about four days in his home. The applicant claims that [Mr B]’s son had called and told the applicant that people were coming to the applicant’s home to look for [Mr B] but the applicant said no one came. The applicant told the Tribunal that [Mr B] had been a leader in protests in support of democracy in Thailand when Thaksin Shinawatra had been Prime Minister but the applicant could not recall the dates. The Tribunal notes that according to a Wikipedia entry in relation to the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (who supporters are commonly called redshirts) that a military coup occurred in 2006 and that coup overthrew that former prime minister who was then in exile.
The applicant was asked about his claimed activities in terms of supporting people attending at redshirt rallies by driving people to rallies. He was asked when he carried out those activities. He could not recall when he carried out those activities but at one stage told the Tribunal it was “before 2014”. He also said in discussing the rallies in Bangkok that it was in “the middle of the month when people got shot”. He also said it was before the coup occurred and that the activities had occurred in 2014 before the coup in May 2014. The Tribunal pressed the applicant to provide details about these claims and he then said that he had been driving people to redshirt rallies in [his home] province in March 2014. The Tribunal overall found the applicant to be very vague in responding to Tribunal questions about details when the applicant claimed he had participated in activities or when claimed activities occurred.
The applicant said that he had last spoken to [Mr B] around July 2015 and that recollection was based on the dates appearing on the faxed documents that had been sent by [Mr B] to the applicants after the interview with the department delegate. He said [Mr B] was in Chiang Mai in Thailand. The Tribunal noted that there had been a suggestion that [Mr B] was going to seek refuge in [other countries]. The applicant said that because the Thai king had died “no one is doing anything” and he then told the Tribunal that he did not know where [Mr B] was located. He told the Tribunal that he thought [Mr B] was shot before the applicants came to Australia and claimed that he was shot “before May”(2014). He thought he was shot when the applicant was driving people to rallies in March 2014. He then subsequently told the Tribunal that he thought [Mr B] was shot after [Mr B] had been hiding at the applicant’s home in May 2014. As indicated the Tribunal found it difficult to get clear details from the applicant about aspects of his claims and also found that the applicant gave inconsistent evidence in relation to aspects of his claims. The Tribunal at one stage during the hearing noted that the second named applicant was writing notes to apparently assist the first named applicant in responding to Tribunal questions. The Tribunal told the second named applicant to stop engaging in that practice.
The applicant said that he still had a son in Thailand but that nothing had happened to the son(in terms of any harm) and that the son had once stayed with [Mr B] in Bangkok. He said he last spoke to his son when the son was in Chiang Mai in Thailand in May 2014.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he had delayed three months after arriving in Australia in May 2014 before he lodged his protection Visa application in August 2014. He told the Tribunal that he did not know which Visa to apply for when he came to Australia. The Tribunal told the applicant that the delay of three months in applying for a protection Visa did not indicate to the Tribunal that the applicant had particular concerns about returning to Thailand. The applicant said that his grandchildren were very young when he came to Australia and that his daughter had recently given birth to another child when the applicants came to Australia and he claimed he needed his daughter to help him to go to the Immigration department(because of his language difficulties) and speak to the Department about visa issues. He said he was unsure about how to find the Department and was concerned about travelling on public transport unless his daughter was with him. The Tribunal found that on occasions the applicant did not engage with Tribunal questions about the delay in applying for a protection visa in Australia. In essence his evidence was that he needed his daughter to assist in contacting the Department and that she had recently given birth to another child just before the applicants arrived in Australia and by inference this had caused the delay in the applicants applying for a protection visa.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his claims in his protection Visa application. He was asked about the claim that he had discussed with friends his criticisms of military control in Thailand and he said he had had a discussion with friends in his house and that about [number] people had been involved. He claimed to have had a verbal argument with his friends about the issues and that the police had heard about that dispute. He claims that’s why he was told by a friend that he would be arrested. He claimed that discussion with friends had occurred at his home before the May 2014 “crisis”.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about the background to the receipt of the letter from [Mr B] to the applicant and his wife in Australia in which [Mr B] had told the applicants not to return to Thailand. The applicant claimed that [Mr B] had phoned the second named applicant in Australia and said that the applicants could not return to Thailand. The applicant was somewhat vague about the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the letter but he said he and or his wife had asked [Mr B] to send that letter. It appeared to the Tribunal that he could not really recall who asked for the letter to be sent but told the Tribunal that the letter had been received after the interview with the delegate. He was unable to give any information about the other document that had been received which appeared to the Tribunal to be an unsourced media article regarding a claimed shooting of [Mr B] in Thailand. The Tribunal asked if there was any documentary evidence that [Mr B] was the [relative] of the second named applicant. The applicant said that his wife’s Thai identity card would show the same family name as [Mr B]. The Tribunal noted that there was no mention of [Mr B]’s political activities in the applicant’s protection Visa application. He did not claim to fear harm in his protection Visa application because of any political activities engaged in by [Mr B] or in relation to the claim that he had provided a hiding place for [Mr B] in order to avoid Thai authorities. The applicant responded by providing a comment that his son had called and said [Mr B] was being looked for by Thai authorities. The Tribunal does not consider that the applicant engaged with the Tribunal’s question about that issue. The Tribunal also asked the applicant as to whether he had gone bankrupt in Thailand and the applicant initially denied that he had gone bankrupt but then conceded that he had been made bankrupt in Thailand. The Tribunal expressed concern about the applicant’s initial claim that he had not been made bankrupt. He also told the Tribunal that he and his wife had borrowed money from a bank in Thailand for investments and those investments had been unsuccessful and he had been made bankrupt and had lost their home. He said it was too dangerous for him to return to Thailand and if he returned to Thailand he had nowhere to go and he could not return to Thailand.
The applicant was asked about the arrest warrants on the Department file for the arrest of both he and the second named applicant. At one stage the applicant told the Tribunal to “ask wife” about the circumstances surrounding the issuing of the warrants. The Tribunal said that it was asking the applicant about his knowledge of the warrants and the Tribunal found that the applicant was very vague in responding to questions about the warrants. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not engage with the Tribunal questions about the warrants and he told the Tribunal that his wife had obtained the warrants that had been provided to the Department.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he wished to comment on the Department delegate’s record of decision and noted that the delegate had rejected a number of the applicants claims. The applicant responded by saying that he was asking for fairness and that he loved Australia and did not want to return to Thailand.
The second named applicant gave evidence to the Tribunal. During the course of her evidence the first named applicant left the hearing room for a break. The second named applicant told the Tribunal that her daughter had completed her protection Visa application and had done so on the basis of instructions provided by the second named applicant. The second named applicant claimed that she and her husband had been in hiding in Bangkok for four days from Thai authorities before coming to Australia. The Tribunal notes that the first named applicant did not make that claim to the Tribunal. The second named applicant claimed that she and her husband were in hiding because they had provided a hiding place for her [relative] [Mr B] on at least two occasions in 2013 and early 2014. She said they provided that assistance to [Mr B] before the 2014 May coup occurred and she claimed that [Mr B] was a leader of the redshirts in Chiang Mai in Thailand. She said she had not been involved in politics in Thailand but had just accompanied her husband when he had been driving people to rallies and that she was not registered as a party member. She told the Tribunal that she had not been harmed in Thailand. She said she had a son in Thailand and that she had last spoken to him in 2016. She said her husband’s involvement in politics in Thailand had been limited to driving people to redshirt rallies. She was asked if there was any evidence that [Mr B] was her [relative] and she said that she did not have any documents at the moment to show to the Tribunal but that there was a Thai family book that could establish the relationship.
She was asked about the arrest warrant for her in Thailand. She said the arrest warrants were “just an allegation” and she provided no details to the Tribunal as to the background of those warrants. She told the Tribunal that she was worried that she would be prosecuted in relation to the offences named in the warrants if she returned to Thailand. She said she had last spoken to her [relative] in Thailand [Mr B] after she had received the letter from him (based on the faxed date as being July 2015) after the interview with the department delegate. The Tribunal tried to ascertain if she or her husband had requested that [Mr B] send the documents (after the interview with the delegate) but the second named applicant said [Mr B] had just sent the letters. The Tribunal found the second named applicant to be vague and unconvincing in discussing the circumstances in which the documents were sent by [Mr B] to her and her husband in Australia. She told the Tribunal that neither the police or the military in Thailand had come to her home looking for [Mr B]. She said that [Mr B] had left the home before the police or military had a chance to come to her home. She claimed that she feared harm in Thailand if she returned because she had been involved in hiding [Mr B] and she claimed that others who had hidden [Mr B] in Thailand had suffered harm. She provided no information or details in relation to the claim that others had suffered harm in Thailand as a result of hiding [Mr B].
She was asked if her son had engaged in political activities in Thailand but she said she did not know what he had been doing but that her son had spent time with [Mr B]. She said she was not sure of [Mr B]’s whereabouts in Thailand. She said she and her husband wanted to remain in Australia and if they were allowed to remain in Australia they would try to bring their son to Australia and she said her daughter’s family was in Australia and if they returned to Thailand they had nowhere to stay. She told the Tribunal that [Mr B] had been shot in Thailand in 2015. The Tribunal noted that she had not referred in her protection Visa application to her claims to fear harm because of [Mr B]’s political activities in Thailand. She said that there were two issues and she did not mention that issue. The Tribunal noted that it thought it was unusual that she had not mentioned her claims to fear harm because of [Mr B]’s political activities and that she and her husband claimed to have provided a hiding place for [Mr B] and feared harm on that basis.
The Tribunal had to briefly adjourn the hearing in order to locate the first named applicant for him to return to the hearing.
The Tribunal raised information contained in the delegate’s decision record. The Tribunal raised that information pursuant to section 424AA of the Act. The Tribunal told the applicants that the information contained in the decision record would be a reason or part of a reason to affirm the decision under review and that information was relevant because of inconsistencies referred to in the delegate’s decision record in terms of information provided by the applicants to the delegate and in the context of information provided by the applicants to the Tribunal in relation to their claims in relation to the same issues. The Tribunal had asked the first named applicant during the course of the hearing if he wished to comment on the findings by the Department delegate. The Tribunal asked the applicant’s if they wished to comment or respond to that information and they said they did not wish to comment or respond and they did not wish to seek any additional time to comment or respond to that information.
The Tribunal notes that there is no DFAT country information or thematic report in relation to Thailand.The Tribunal referred to country information in relation to Thailand and referred to information contained in an Amnesty International report for Thailand in relation to events in 2016/2017 and noted that in that period military authorities in Thailand had further restricted human rights and that peaceful political dissent, whether through speech or protests, and acts perceived as critical of the monarchy were punished or banned. That report indicated that politicians and activists and human rights defenders face criminal investigations and prosecutions in Thailand for among other things campaigning against a proposed constitution and reporting on state abuses. The report noted that many civilians were tried in military courts and that torture and other ill treatment was widespread. That report also referred to the establishment of the National Council for Peace and Order which was formed by military authorities after the 2014 coup. The Tribunal also referred to the Human Rights Watch report which was referred to by the Tribunal during the course of the hearing and referred to events in Thailand in 2014. That report noted that the National Council for Peace and Order had severely repressed the rights to freedoms of expression and association and peaceful assembly and detained hundreds of people mostly without charge and tried civilians in military courts with no right to appeal.
The Tribunal also referred to a report by the United States Department of State, human rights report in relation to Thailand in 2015. The Tribunal noted in the executive summary in relation to that report that information was provided in relation to arrest procedures and treatment of detainees and that report noted that with few exceptions the law in Thailand required police to obtain a warrant from a judge prior to making an arrest. The report noted that the system for issuing arrest warrants was subject to misuse by police in Thailand as well as a judicial tendency to approve automatically all requests for warrants. That summary also noted that in Thailand authorities must inform persons of likely charges against them immediately after arrest and allow them to inform someone of their arrest. The report also indicates that the law in Thailand provides for access to counsel for criminal detainees but lawyers and human rights groups claim police often conducted interrogations without providing access to an attorney. The report also notes that in relation to trial procedures that the law in Thailand provides for the presumption of innocence and there is no trial by jury. The report noted that prior to its suspension the Thai constitution provided for a prompt trial although a large backlog of cases remained in the court system. The report also noted that in ordinary criminal courts defendants enjoy a broad range of legal rights that included access to a lawyer and prompt and detailed information about the charges and adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence. The report also indicates that defendants have the right not to be compelled to testify or to confess guilt and can confront witnesses and can call witnesses. The Tribunal notes that report also notes that in May 2014 the National Council for Peace and Order established by the Thai military had redirected prosecutions for offences against the monarchy, insurrection, sedition, secession and violation of its orders from civilian criminal Court jurisdiction to military courts. The report indicates that military courts do not provide the same legal protection for civilian defendants as do civilian criminal courts.
The Tribunal also notes that in the Wikipedia report referred to elsewhere in these reasons in relation to the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship information is provided as to the background of the redshirt movement and refers briefly to political events in Thailand since 2006.
The Tribunal referred to concerns that it had about the applicants claims and the credibility of the applicants claims. The Tribunal said it doubted that the applicants had a well-founded fear of harm if they returned to Thailand based on their claims. The Tribunal briefly indicated that its assessment of the country information was that political activists and high-profile activists might be at risk in Thailand but that the applicants did not have such a risk profile based on the Tribunal’s assessment of the evidence and the claims. The Tribunal indicated that it was concerned about the overall credibility of the applicants claims and also noted that there were some inconsistencies in relation to the applicants claims. The Tribunal noted that there were limited details in the applicants protection Visa claims and noted that there was no mention in either of the claims as to concerns by the applicants that they were at risk of harm on the basis of the second named applicant’s [relative]’s political activities or that they had provided a hiding place for that [relative] and feared harm on that basis. The Tribunal told the applicants that the evidence did not indicate that they were of any interest to Thai authorities when they left Thailand (apart from the arrest warrants which were issued after the applicants had left Thailand) and that they had been able to travel on their own passports and leave Thailand to come to Australia without difficulties. The Tribunal noted that the evidence of the applicants in relation to some aspects of their claims was very vague and also noted the delay by the first named applicant in applying for a protection visa after he came to Australia. The Tribunal told the applicants that the evidence suggested to the Tribunal that the applicants were seeking to avoid legal proceedings in Thailand and were also concerned that they had no home in Thailand if they had to return. The Tribunal also indicated that it was concerned about the circumstances surrounding the receipt of the letter from the second named applicants [relative].

The applicants did not comment on the concerns referred to by the Tribunal but the second named applicant asked for kindness from the Tribunal and said that the applicants did not want to return to Thailand. The applicants told the Tribunal on several occasions that they were not going to return to Thailand.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
On the basis of the materials and information provided to the Department and available to the Tribunal, the Tribunal accepts that the applicants are Thai citizens and that their identities are as they claim them to be. The Tribunal accepts without evidence to the contrary that the second named applicant is a member of the same family unit as the first named applicant. The Tribunal accepts, without evidence to the contrary, that on the basis of the information and materials provided to the Department and available to the Tribunal, that the applicants do not have a right to enter or reside temporarily or permanently in any other country apart from Thailand. The Tribunal accepts that Thailand is the applicants country of nationality for Convention purposes and is the receiving country for complementary protection purposes
The Tribunal is not satisfied as to the first named applicant’s claims that he has a well-founded fear of persecution if he returned to Thailand based on his claims and his evidence to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is also not satisfied as to the first named applicant’s credibility in relation to some aspects of his evidence and to some aspects of his claims. The Tribunal is also not satisfied as to the second named applicants claims that she has a well-founded fear of persecution if she returned to Thailand and the Tribunal is also not satisfied as to the second named applicant’s credibility in relation to some aspects of her claims and her evidence.
The applicants claims to fear harm are referred to in detail elsewhere in these reasons. In essence the first named applicant claimed to fear harm because of a political opinion and he claimed to fear harm from Thai authorities. He claimed he supported democracy in Thailand and that he had also been involved in hiding [Mr B], a claimed redshirt leader, from Thai authorities. He claimed to be at risk of harm on that basis if he returned to Thailand. The second named applicant claimed that she was at risk of harm in Thailand because of her association with her husband and because she had been involved in hiding [Mr B]. As indicated the Tribunal considers the first named applicant as the primary applicant for protection and the second named applicant is being considered for protection on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as the first named applicant. However as indicated the second named applicant also raised particular claims to fear harm during the course of the Tribunal hearing.
The Tribunal has considered the first named applicant’s claims and his evidence that he fears harm on the basis of his political opinion if he returned to Thailand. As indicated the Tribunal found aspects of the applicants claims to be vague and also aspects involved inconsistent evidence by the applicant. He was very general in discussing his claims to fear harm in that he essentially said he was a redshirt supporter and had supported a former prime minister in Thailand and supported democracy. He did not provide the Tribunal with any detailed information about his claims to be a redshirt supporter and did not suggest to the Tribunal that Movement’s formal name as the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (see the Wikipedia entry referred to elsewhere in these reasons) but just referred to redshirts. He claimed he had been involved in a verbal dispute with some friends at his home and that he was at risk of harm because he had spoken on that occasion against the military and feared arrest. He was vague in discussing that claim before the Tribunal. He said his actual support for the redshirt movement involved driving supporters to rallies. He had not been a member of any political party in Thailand. He was vague in relation to details around dates of the rallies and in providing any significant detail to the Tribunal about dates and events generally. He appeared to struggle to recall relevant dates of claimed incidents and provided inconsistent evidence in relation to his dealings with [Mr B] and his claims that he had provided a hiding place for [Mr B].
He struggled to provide details to the Tribunal about his claims other than to claim generally that events had occurred before the May 2014 coup but in some respects his claims to fear harm from the military were inconsistent with the date of the actual coup being 22 May 2014 which also happened to be [when] the applicants [were] in Australia. The Human Rights Watch Report for Thailand in referring to events of 2014 refers to the Thai military having staged a coup on May 22, 2014 and establishing the National Council for Peace and Order. As indicated elsewhere in these reasons the applicant gave inconsistent evidence about when he believed [Mr B] had been shot in Thailand. He told the Tribunal that the police and military had not come to his home looking for [Mr B]. He did not claim that he had suffered any harm in Thailand because of his claimed political activities. He was able to leave Thailand without difficulty and travel to Australia on his own passport. As indicated elsewhere in these reasons he could not provide the Tribunal with any comments in relation to the arrest warrants in Thailand for he and his wife. He initially denied to the Tribunal that he been made bankrupt but then conceded he had been made bankrupt in Thailand and as a result lost his home. The Tribunal has referred to these issues elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal has also considered the delay by the applicant in applying for a protection visa after he arrived in Australia in May 2014 but did not lodge a protection visa until late August 2014. The Tribunal considers that the applicant struggled to explain the delay by him in lodging a protection visa in Australia. There were other occasions during the course of the hearing where the Tribunal considers that the applicant did not engage with Tribunal questions. Those occasions have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal also notes that neither applicant in their protection visa applications made reference to the claims to fear harm on the basis of their claimed association/relationship with [Mr B] or that they feared harm on the basis of their claims that they had hidden that person from Thai authorities. Given that both applicants made significant reference during the Tribunal hearing and before the Department delegate to their claims to fear harm on that basis the Tribunal considers that it would be reasonable for it to assume that the applicants would have made those particular claims in their protection visa applications if in fact they feared harm on that basis.
The Tribunal has considered the evidence provided by the second named applicant. That evidence has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal notes that she claims that she and her husband hid her [relative] from Thai authorities on occasions in 2013 and 2014. The Tribunal notes that she claimed that her [relative] [Mr B] was shot in 2015. She claimed that she and her husband had been in hiding in Bangkok for 4 days before they came to Australia. Like her husband she did not engage with the Tribunal about the background to the arrest warrants that had been issued in Thailand. She did tell the Tribunal that she was worried that she would be prosecuted in relation to those arrest warrants if she returned to Thailand. The Tribunal found her very vague in responding to Tribunal questions about the circumstances in which her claimed [relative] sent the documents to the applicants after the applicant’s interview with the department delegate in relation to their protection Visa application. She claimed that her only political activities in Thailand had been accompanying her husband when he had driven redshirt supporters to rallies. She did not claim that she had faced any harm in Thailand because of any claimed political activities and she had been able to obtain her passport and leave Thailand to come to Australia without any difficulties. The Tribunal also notes that the second named applicant had travelled to Australia on several occasions between October 2006 and May 2014. She did not claim to the Tribunal that she had had any difficulties in leaving or returning to Thailand to travel to Australia on those occasions.
As indicated elsewhere in these reasons she did not make any claim in her protection Visa application that she feared harm in Thailand because of her claimed [relative]’s political activities or because she claimed to have hidden her [relative] from Thai authorities in 2013 and 2014. The Tribunal notes that there were inconsistencies in the evidence provided by the first and second named applicants in relation to the date when [Mr B] was said to be shot in Thailand and about the claim by the second named applicant that she and her husband had been in hiding in Bangkok for four days before coming to Australia. The first named applicant did not refer to that claim. The first named applicant did not claim to have hidden [Mr B] from Thai authorities in 2013. The Tribunal notes that notwithstanding the claims that the second named applicants [relative] was wanted by Thai authorities it appeared from the overall evidence given by the applicants to the Tribunal that he continues to reside in Thailand although on occasions it was difficult to ascertain if the applicant’s actually knew where the applicant’s [relative] was residing. It seems from the evidence the last contact with him was in 2015 around the time that he was said to have forwarded the documents to the applicant. The applicants daughter gave evidence that she had spoken to [Mr B] in 2015. The daughter said she thought that was around the time he had been shot. The second named applicant said he was shot in 2015. The first named applicant thought he had been shot in 2014 but provided inconsistent evidence about the date of the shooting.
The Tribunal also notes the delegates record of decision (see page 11) noting that information provided in the media in Thailand referred to [Mr B] having been shot in Chiang Mai in Thailand [in] July 2014. The Tribunal notes that the applicants came to Australia in May 2014.
The Tribunal has also considered the evidence provided by the applicants daughter and that evidence has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. In summary she relied on what her parents and [Mr B] had told her about the applicants claims. She said she had had two telephone conversations with [Mr B]. The Tribunal notes that she claimed to have had telephone calls with a person who she claimed to be [Mr B] and she did not claim to have been involved in any face-to-face discussions with that person about her parents claims. She was unclear about [Mr B]’s political activities in Thailand in terms of the level of those activities and that aspect has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. She claimed he was a redshirt leader but was unsure at the level at which he operated. She told the Tribunal that she did not think her parents were facing difficulties when she had been visiting them in Thailand in 2013. The Tribunal's assessment of her evidence is that she relied significantly on what her parents had told her about their situation and claims. She also initially told the Tribunal that her parents could not return to Thailand because a warrant had been issued for her father's arrest. The Tribunal considers that her overall evidence was very general and lacking in any significant detail in relation to the applicants claims. The Tribunal has also considered the documentation that was provided to the Department by the applicants after the interview with the department delegate and which was said to have been forwarded by the second named applicant's [relative] from Thailand.
As indicated elsewhere in these reasons the Tribunal found that much of the first named applicant’s evidence was vague and lacking in detail and inconsistent in some respects as to details and as indicated the Tribunal also had concerns about the evidence of the second named applicant in relation to a number of issues and claims.
The Tribunal has considered the totality of the applicants evidence that has been referred to in relation to their claims and had regard to the totality of the evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also had regard to relevant and available country information that has been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal after considering the totality of the evidence that has been considered and discussed does not accept the first or second named applicants are credible witnesses. The Tribunal does not accept that it's assessment of the applicants credibility is affected by their relatively limited education. The Tribunal's assessment of the applicants credibility is based on its assessment of the totality of the evidence and information before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal after considering the totality of the applicants claims and the totality of the evidence and its assessment of available and relevant country information does not accept that the applicants have a well-founded fear of harm on the basis of the claims to the Tribunal that they fear harm on the basis of a political opinion and including having hidden the second named applicants [relative] from Thai authorities.
The Tribunal after considering the totality of the evidence does not accept the applicants claims that the second named applicants [relative] is [Mr B]. The Tribunal considers that if that person was related to the applicants that the applicants would have been able to give much more detailed and precise evidence about that person’s activities and including the shooting incident. The Tribunal’s overall assessment of the applicants claims about the relationship to that person was that the evidence was very general and on occasions very vague and to some extent inconsistent. That assessment of the evidence is on the Tribunal’s view not consistent with the applicant’s claims that they are related to that person.
The evidence given by the applicant’s daughter has been considered by the Tribunal but that evidence does not alter the Tribunal’s assessment of the claimed relationship. The Tribunal has also considered the documentation provided by the applicants to the Department after the interview with the department delegate. That documentation was said by the applicants to have been sent by the second named applicants [relative] [Mr B] to the applicants in Australia. The Tribunal indicated to the applicants that it had concerns about that documentation and asked the applicant’s about the circumstances in which that documentation was provided to them. The Tribunal’s overall assessment of the applicant’s evidence about the receipt of the documentation and the circumstances in which it was provided is considered by the Tribunal to be overall vague and unconvincing. The Tribunal on its overall assessment of the evidence and its assessment of the applicants credibility is not satisfied that the documentation was provided by [Mr B]. That documentation, given the Tribunal’s concerns, does not alter the Tribunal’s overall assessment in relation to the applicants claims.
The Tribunal does not accept that the first named applicant was engaged in any political activities in Thailand that placed him at risk of a real chance of serious harm. The Tribunal does not accept after considering the evidence that has been considered and discussed and its assessment of his credibility that the applicant was involved in driving redshirt supporters to political rallies or that he was involved in hiding [Mr B] from Thai authorities as he claimed. The Tribunal does not accept the first named applicant’s claims that he feared harm because he had spoken to friends about his opposition and criticisms of time military authorities in relation to democracy issues in Thailand. The Tribunal for the reasons that have been considered and discussed does not accept the first named applicant’s claims that he feared harm from Thai military and Thai police officers on the basis of his political opinion. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was a redshirt supporter and engaged in any political activities in support of that movement that would place him at risk of harm. The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s overall evidence about being a red shirt supporter was very general and lacking in detail.
The Tribunal after considering the first named applicant’s claims both individually and cumulatively does not accept on the basis of its assessment of the evidence and its assessment of the applicant’s credibility that the first named applicant faces a real chance of serious harm for a Convention based reason if he returned to Thailand either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.
The Tribunal after considering the totality of the evidence that has been considered and discussed and its assessment of her credibility does not accept that the second named applicant was engaged in any political activities in support of the first named applicant or that she was engaged in hiding her claimed [relative] from Thai authorities in 2013 and 2014. As indicated the Tribunal does not accept on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal that the second named applicant is related to [Mr B]. The Tribunal does not accept that the second named applicant was in hiding in Bangkok before coming to Australia or that she was engaged in any political activities in support of the redshirt movement in Thailand that would place her at risk if she returned to Thailand. The Tribunal also does not accept, based on the evidence before the Tribunal, the second named applicants claim that other people who hid [Mr B] had suffered harm in Thailand. As indicated elsewhere in these reasons she provided no information or details in support of that claim to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal also does not accept, for the reasons that have been considered and discussed, that the second named applicant after considering her claims individually and cumulatively faces a real chance of serious harm for a convention based reason if she returned to Thailand either now or in the reasonably foreseeable future
The Tribunal considers on its assessment of the evidence that the applicants do not wish to return to Thailand because there are arrest warrants in place for them and because they have no home in Thailand and they wish to remain in Australia for those and family reasons
The Tribunal has considered whether there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to Thailand that they face a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal has considered , and discussed,the applicants claims and their evidence and its assessment of their credibility and has also considered available and relevant country information. As indicated the Tribunal believes that the applicants do not wish to return to Thailand because they fear they will be prosecuted in relation to the arrest warrants that have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. The Tribunal also believes that they wish to remain in Australia for family reasons and also do not wish to return to Thailand because they have lost their home in Thailand. The Tribunal has referred to relevant country information in relation to persons charged with civil offences in Thailand. That evidence is referred to in the United States Department of State human rights report for Thailand the 2015.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that if the applicant’s returned to Thailand that the proceedings that they are facing would be transferred to a military court based on the country information referred to in these reasons. In those circumstances the applicants would be treated in accordance with the trial procedures and arrest procedures outlined in the United States Department of State report that have been referred to elsewhere in these reasons. They would receive the presumption of innocence and as noted in the United States state Department report, “in ordinary criminal courts, defendants enjoy a broad range of legal rights”. The report however did note as well authorities in Thailand did not automatically provide indigent defendants with counsel at public expense, and there were allegations authorities did not afford defendants all the above rights, especially in small remote provinces. The report indicates that while the system has deficiencies there are a number of factors in terms of trial procedures and arrest procedures that provide some fundamental rights to defendants in criminal cases. The Tribunal in considering the applicants situation regarding outstanding arrest warrants if they returned to Thailand also notes that the United States state Department report indicates that “criminal detainees have the right to initiate court proceedings to determine the lawfulness of their detention and may obtain compensation if authorities unlawfully detained them” (see page 9 of that report). The Tribunal considers that the enforcement of the Thai criminal law would be the enforcement of a law of general application in Thailand and not directed for some personal or discriminatory reason at the applicants.

The Tribunal notes that in relation to the applicants claims that they would not have a home if returned to Thailand that the information in the Department delegates decision record indicates that the second named applicant informed the delegate that their home in Thailand had been seized by the bank before the applicants came to Australia in May 2014 and that the applicants had informed the delegate that the home was seized about [number] months before they came to Australia (see page 8 of the delegates decision record). The Tribunal considers that the first named applicant had previously been able to work and survive in Thailand and provide support for his family. There is no information or evidence before the Tribunal that the first named applicant and second named applicant would not be able to obtain employment and accommodation if they returned to Thailand. The Tribunal notes that their son apparently continues to reside in Thailand.
The Tribunal has considered the applicants claims and their evidence and its assessment of their credibility and has also considered available and relevant country information, which has been referred to, in relation to the applicants claims. The Tribunal has referred elsewhere in these reasons to its assessment of the applicants claims and the evidence and its assessment of the applicants credibility and its assessment of relevant country information. The Tribunal has considered the definition of significant harm contained in the Act. The Tribunal has considered the applicants claims that they fear harm if they return to Thailand on the basis of a political opinion and including their claims that they fear harm because they provided hiding accommodation for the claimed [relative] of the second named applicant. For the same reasons that have been considered and discussed the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicants being removed from Australia to Thailand that there is a real risk that they would be subjected to any form of harm that would be the result of an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on the applicants for the reasons specified in the definition of torture in s.5(1) of the Act. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicants will suffer harm that would involve the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, either physical or mental, or pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, intentionally inflicted on the applicants so long as in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature such as that would meet the definition of cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment in the Act. The Tribunal is also not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicants would suffer such harm as to meet the definition of degrading treatment or punishment in the Act, which refers to an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable. The Tribunal is also not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicants will suffer arbitrary deprivation of their lives or the death penalty. The Tribunal is not satisfied on its assessment of the totality of the evidence that the applicants face a real risk of significant harm on the basis of their claims if they returned to Thailand.
Overall Summary
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). As they do not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa, they cannot be granted the visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Protection visas.
James Jolliffe
Member

[2017] AATA 592

30 March 2017

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction