1703058 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa. The applicant, a national of Thailand, arrived in Australia in January 2015 on a student visa and subsequently applied for a protection visa in November 2015. The Department refused the protection visa application on 1 February 2017, leading the applicant to seek merits review by the Tribunal. The applicant claimed to have fled Thailand due to fear for her life, threats of violence, kidnapping, forced prostitution, and ongoing threats to her family in Thailand from a criminal gang.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Australia owed protection obligations to the applicant under section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee or, alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Thailand, she would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant country information and established legal principles regarding credibility assessment and the application of the "benefit of the doubt" in protection claims.

The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in *Guo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs* and the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status, acknowledging the difficulties asylum seekers often face in substantiating their claims. While accepting the applicant's general credibility, the Tribunal found that her account of being forced into servitude and subsequent extraction by a "customer" was not sufficiently coherent or plausible to warrant the benefit of the doubt. Specifically, the Tribunal noted the lack of detail regarding the identity of the individuals involved in her alleged exploitation and extraction, and the absence of corroborating evidence. The Tribunal also considered the country information regarding criminal elements in Thailand, but concluded that the applicant had not established a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, finding that Australia did not have protection obligations towards the applicant.