1808624 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant from Thailand seeking a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution and significant harm upon return to Thailand due to substantial debts owed to unlicensed money lenders. The applicant alleged that these lenders had made threats, damaged his property, and threatened his life, and that he could not seek assistance from Thai authorities due to perceived corruption and connections between the lenders and the government.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), thereby satisfying section 36(2)(a) of the Act, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Thailand, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visa. In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that it had taken into account relevant guidelines and country information. While the applicant presented claims of threats and fear of harm from money lenders, the Tribunal's decision implies that these claims, as presented, did not meet the threshold for a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm as defined by the Act. The Tribunal specifically found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under section 36(2) of the Act, which encompasses both refugee status and complementary protection.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.