1620244 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a citizen of Thailand. The applicant claimed he would face persecution upon return to Thailand by the Army and supporters of the People’s Alliance for Democracy (Yellow Shirts) due to his political activism in support of the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), also known as the Red Shirts movement. He alleged past persecution, including being shot during a protest in 2010 and being detained by the army for two months in 2012, and claimed a recent raid on his home in March 2015 prompted his departure to Australia.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958, as a refugee with a well-founded fear of persecution based on political opinion, or alternatively, under section 36(2)(aa), by satisfying the complementary protection criterion due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's credibility and the veracity of his claims in light of the evidence presented and relevant country information.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not a credible witness, noting inconsistencies in his evidence regarding his place of residence and employment in Thailand. Specifically, the Tribunal found it improbable that the applicant lived in Sakon Nakhon province while working in Bangkok, a considerable distance away, and also operated a market stall in Sakon Nakhon. Furthermore, the applicant's claims of political activism and past persecution were not corroborated by documentation, with the applicant stating he had destroyed such evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not been politically active in Thailand and did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. The Tribunal also found no substantial grounds to believe that the applicant would suffer significant harm upon return to Thailand, thus failing to meet the complementary protection criterion.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that he did not satisfy the criteria under either section 36(2)(a) or section 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958.