1916440 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning a Thai national's application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed he left Thailand due to escalating aggression and threats from his former employer, including physical assault and a threat to kill him. He asserted that he could not seek assistance from Thai authorities due to his employer's power and connections, and that relocating within Thailand was not a viable option due to fear and lack of resources.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant faced a real chance of persecution in Thailand for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Thailand, he would suffer significant harm under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to consider relevant guidelines and country information in its assessment.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the *Migration Act*. It noted that if the refugee criterion under section 36(2)(a) was not met, the applicant might still qualify under the complementary protection criterion in section 36(2)(aa) if there was a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal's assessment involved evaluating the applicant's fear of persecution and the availability of state protection in Thailand, as well as the concept of significant harm as defined in the Act.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The decision record indicates that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act*, which encompasses both the refugee and complementary protection provisions.