1620291 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa, who claimed to fear harm from a money lender in Thailand. The applicant's claims were based on allegations of being unable to repay a loan, leading to harassment, threats of death, and physical assault.

The primary 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, by having a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa), by facing a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Thailand. The Tribunal also had to consider whether the applicant's fear was for a reason prescribed by the Act, such as membership of a particular social group, and whether any claimed harm constituted "significant harm" as defined by the legislation.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims of fear or the alleged harm. It noted that the mere assertion of fear does not establish its genuineness or well-foundedness, and the onus rests on the applicant to provide particulars and evidence to support their case. The Tribunal found that the applicant's claims regarding the money lender were vague and lacked corroboration. Furthermore, it determined that debtors to money lenders, in the circumstances described, did not constitute a "particular social group" for the purposes of refugee protection. The Tribunal also considered the possibility of relocating within Thailand and the availability of state protection, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated that these options were unavailable or ineffective.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, finding that the applicant had failed to satisfy the statutory criteria for protection.