1731258 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the application of a Thai national for a protection visa. The applicant claimed membership and active participation in the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD), also known as the Red Shirt movement, and alleged that government authorities had captured UDD files. He also claimed that recent changes to military service laws, combined with his UDD affiliation, placed him in danger of being called up for military service, abducted, jailed, or killed, despite admitting he had not experienced harm in Thailand.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958. This involved assessing whether he had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason (political opinion) or whether he was owed complementary protection due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Thailand. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant was a member of the same family unit as someone who met these criteria.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal had regard to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade country information report for Thailand, which indicated that while the Red Shirt movement had previously faced government crackdowns, authorities no longer widely harassed or monitored its supporters, particularly those who were not politically active. The report assessed that non-active Red Shirt supporters were not at risk of official discrimination or violence, and prominent active supporters faced only a low risk of monitoring or harassment. The Tribunal noted the applicant’s failure to attend a hearing or respond to an invitation to do so, and his admission of no past harm. Based on the available country information and the applicant's claims, the Tribunal concluded that he had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm.

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