1916772 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a woman from Thailand. The applicant claimed she had borrowed money to establish a business and travel, and that the lenders, who were involved in illegal activities, had subsequently harassed, threatened, and beaten her. She alleged they pressured her to participate in child trafficking, and that her refusal had led to personal threats of revenge, physical torture, and a risk to her life, asserting that Thai authorities could not protect her due to corruption and the lenders' influence. The decision under review was made by the Tribunal.

The court was required to determine two primary issues. Firstly, whether there was a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted in Thailand for one of the five reasons specified in s 5J(1)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) for the purpose of s 36(2)(a) of the Act. Secondly, if the applicant did not meet the refugee criterion, the court had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her removal from Australia to Thailand, she faced a real risk of suffering significant harm, pursuant to s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed. It found that the applicant's claims were vague and inconsistent, particularly regarding her financial dealings and the alleged threats. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had made regular repayments on her loan, both before leaving Thailand and while working in Australia, which undermined the assertion of severe and ongoing harassment. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the applicant's Australian citizen partner's health issues were not a relevant consideration for the protection visa application. The Tribunal applied the principles of Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, and Complementary Protection Guidelines, along with country information, in its assessment.