1835833 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Thai national. The applicant claimed to have fled Thailand in January 2018 due to owing money to a loan shark, fearing harm if she returned. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant faced a real chance of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal to Thailand, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim regarding the loan shark was not credible. This conclusion was based on significant inconsistencies and implausibilities in her evidence. Specifically, the Tribunal noted the applicant's inability to name the loan shark despite allegedly borrowing money from him on numerous occasions and meeting him in person. Furthermore, her explanations regarding the amounts borrowed and the frequency of these transactions were found to be internally inconsistent and unconvincing, particularly the discrepancy between her claimed total debt and the individual loan amounts and number of loans. The Tribunal also found her evidence regarding the loan terms and interest rates to be vague.

Given the lack of credibility in the applicant's central claim, the Tribunal concluded that she did not face a well-founded fear of persecution for any of the reasons outlined in section 5J(1)(a) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal also found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.