1821718 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for protection visas by two applicants, a husband and wife, who sought review of a decision by the Department of Home Affairs to refuse their applications. The applicants claimed they feared returning to Thailand due to the wife's debt to money lenders, which had led to threats and assaults against her. New claims were made during the hearing before the Tribunal, and discrepancies were noted between the applicants' evidence and their initial claims.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicants were persons in respect of whom Australia had protection obligations, either because they met the definition of a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 or because they faced a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Thailand under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal was required to assess the credibility of the applicants' claims, the authenticity of the evidence provided, and whether effective protection was available in Thailand.

The Tribunal found that the applicants' claims and evidence regarding events in Thailand were not credible. It noted inconsistencies in the husband's understanding of the application and the events, and that many new claims were introduced during the hearing that were not in the original application. The Tribunal also considered the documentary evidence, including a photograph of the alleged assault and translated news articles about money lenders, but ultimately concluded that these did not establish a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal applied the principles of refugee law and complementary protection, considering the definitions of "significant harm" and "well-founded fear of persecution" as set out in the Migration Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under either section 36(2)(a) or 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the protection visas.