1914054 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Thai national, sought a protection visa, claiming fear of harm from loan sharks and a former boss in Thailand. The dispute arose when the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa. The applicant had left Thailand after becoming responsible for her former boss's debt, which led to alleged home invasion and a beating.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, or under section 36(2)(aa) for complementary protection. This required determining if she had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if returned to Thailand. A key consideration was the applicant's obligation under section 5AAA of the Act to specify all particulars of her claim and provide sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to discharge her onus under section 5AAA. Her visa application lacked specific details regarding her residential history, education, and employment in Thailand. Furthermore, she consented to the Tribunal deciding her application on the papers without a hearing, despite being invited to present evidence. Given the vague and inconsistent claims, the absence of supporting documentation, and the applicant's failure to provide sufficient particulars of her claim, the Tribunal concluded that she had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision.