1703854 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa applications of three Thai nationals. The primary applicant, the mother, claimed she feared persecution in Thailand due to her occupation and religious beliefs, and also alleged she was trafficked to Australia to work in the sex industry to repay a debt. Her de facto partner and Australian-born daughter sought visas as members of her family unit.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicants qualified for protection visas under the "refugee" criterion, or alternatively, under the "complementary protection" criterion, and whether the partner and daughter were members of the same family unit as a qualifying applicant. The Tribunal was required to assess the mother's fear of persecution against the criteria for a well-founded fear, considering country information regarding household debt, money lenders, and human trafficking in Thailand. It also needed to determine if the mother constituted a member of a particular social group and if effective state protection was available or relocation was reasonable.

The Tribunal found that the applicants were nationals of Thailand. While it accepted the applicants' de facto relationship and the daughter's parentage, it concluded that the mother did not meet the criteria for a "refugee" under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), nor did it find substantial grounds to believe she would suffer significant harm under the complementary protection criterion (section 36(2)(aa)). However, the Tribunal was satisfied that the partner and daughter were members of the same family unit as the mother, as required by section 36(2)(b)(i).

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the decision for reconsideration. It directed that the first applicant be found to satisfy section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act*, and that the other applicants satisfy section 36(2)(b)(i) on the basis of their family unit membership with the first applicant.