1707655 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Thai national, sought a protection visa, claiming he feared persecution in Thailand due to his Muslim religion and the ongoing insurgency in the southern provinces. He alleged that the government was unable to provide protection and that relocation within Thailand was not a viable option as Muslims were widely disliked. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed the decision to refuse the visa.

The core legal issues before the AAT were whether the applicant possessed a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that his removal from Australia would result in a real risk of significant harm, as defined by section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims in light of relevant country information and guidelines, including the Refugee Law Guidelines and Complementary Protection Guidelines.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the protection visa. It found that the applicant had not discharged his onus to establish a well-founded fear of persecution. While acknowledging the existence of insurgency in southern Thailand and the applicant's stated fear, the Tribunal did not find that the applicant had demonstrated a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason, nor that effective protection measures were unavailable. Crucially, the Tribunal considered that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish that he could not reasonably relocate to an area within Thailand where he would not face a real risk of significant harm, a factor that can negate a claim for complementary protection under section 36(2B)(a). The Tribunal also noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for being a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.