1704450 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Thailand, sought a protection visa in Australia. The dispute concerned her claims of fearing harm from a loan shark upon return to Thailand, stemming from a loan taken out to repay earlier bank loans. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, either under the refugee criterion or complementary protection grounds, considering her stated fears and the country information relating to financial laws and their enforcement in Thailand.

The court considered the applicant's credibility and the consistency of her claims. It noted discrepancies between her initial claims of fearing "moguls" and potential severe harm, and her later evidence attributing her fear to a specific female loan shark. The Tribunal also examined her financial circumstances, including her ability to borrow from banks at a lower interest rate and her continued employment despite claims of living in hiding. The court applied the principles outlined in sections 36(2)(a) and 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958, which define the criteria for refugee and complementary protection, respectively, and considered relevant country information regarding the availability of protection in Thailand.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason, nor had she demonstrated a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal from Australia. Her ability to obtain loans from banks at a lower interest rate and her continued work in Thailand, despite her alleged need to hide, undermined her claims of being unable to manage her financial affairs or facing imminent danger. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that any risk she faced was not specific to her but was a general risk faced by the population, or that she could relocate within Thailand to avoid such risks.

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