1916448 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for review of a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs' decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa. The applicant, a national of Thailand, claimed to have fled Australia due to threats from money lenders who he owed a debt to. He alleged that these lenders had destroyed his business, physically assaulted him, and threatened his family, and that he feared torture and death if returned to Thailand. The applicant had arrived in Australia in 2012 and lodged his protection visa application in July 2018.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958. Specifically, the Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant was a refugee within the meaning of section 5H of the Act, having a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, or if he qualified for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) due to a real risk of significant harm upon removal to Thailand. The Tribunal also considered whether effective protection measures were available to the applicant in Thailand and whether internal relocation was a reasonable option.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had a business in Thailand and had borrowed money from a local lender, facing difficulties with repayment. However, it noted a discrepancy between the applicant's initial claim of being forced to do illegal activities and his later evidence that the dispute stemmed from his refusal to slander the "Yellow Shirts" and his subsequent support for them. Despite this discrepancy, the Tribunal gave the applicant the benefit of the doubt regarding this specific claim. Nevertheless, the Tribunal concluded that there was no real chance or real risk that the applicant would suffer serious or significant harm if returned to Thailand. This conclusion was based on the assessment that the alleged threats from the money lender, even if accepted, did not rise to the level of persecution or significant harm as defined by the Act, and that state protection or internal relocation would likely be available.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2) of the Migration Act. The decision of the delegate not to grant the protection visa was affirmed.