1816711 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered the case of two Thai citizens who applied for protection visas in Australia. The applicants claimed they had fled Thailand due to threats from individuals seeking to recover a debt fraudulently attributed to the first-named applicant. They asserted that if returned to Thailand, they faced threats of property damage, beatings, and ultimately death, and that Thai authorities would be unable to protect them due to the influence of an organised crime family.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act), which requires a well-founded fear of persecution, or under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which concerns complementary protection grounds due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal from Australia. The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicants' claims and consider relevant country information and guidelines.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicants had not established a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. While acknowledging the applicants' fear of harm from moneylenders, the Tribunal found that this fear did not meet the threshold for persecution under the Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the possibility of complementary protection, but concluded that the applicants had not demonstrated substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to Thailand, they would suffer significant harm. The Tribunal also noted that the applicants had not provided evidence of any political profile or involvement that would place them at risk due to political opinion, and that general country conditions, including the economic situation and the COVID-19 pandemic, did not alter this assessment.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations. The decision of the Department not to grant the applicants protection visas was therefore affirmed.