1607141 (Refugee)

The applicant, a citizen of Thailand and a Buddhist monk, sought a protection visa in Australia. He claimed that if returned to Thailand, he feared being disrobed and ostracised by the Buddhist community due to allegations of improper conduct made against him in Australia. These allegations, he asserted, were false and stemmed from a complainant with mental health issues. The applicant also expressed fear of punishment under the Sangha Act and potential physical harm, including being assaulted by a hired gangster, if he did not pay a bribe to avoid consequences related to the allegations. The Federal Circuit Court remitted the matter for reconsideration by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), specifically whether he was a refugee within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Refugees Convention, or alternatively, whether he qualified for complementary protection. This involved determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason (religion or membership of a particular social group) or if he faced serious harm on other grounds. The Tribunal also had to consider the evidence presented to previous Tribunal members and the applicant's further evidence and submissions.

The Tribunal reasoned that it could consider all evidence previously presented, including that given to earlier, differently constituted Tribunals, as well as new evidence and submissions. The applicant's claims centred on his fear of being disrobed, ostracised, and forced into civilian life due to false allegations of misconduct in Australia. He also feared punishment under the Sangha Act and potential physical harm, including being coerced into paying a bribe. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's official passport had been revoked due to these allegations. However, the delegate had previously found that the feared harm was not sufficiently serious or systematic to constitute persecution for a Convention reason, nor did it meet the threshold for complementary protection. The applicant further alleged that he feared assault by a gangster hired by the Sangha Supreme Council and provided media reports and statements suggesting corruption and extortion within the Buddhist administration in Thailand, including demands for bribes to retain monastic status.