1917587 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of applicants seeking protection visas. The applicants claimed to fear harm from a money lender with links to organised crime in Thailand, to whom they owed money from an agricultural business. The primary applicant had previously declared access to sufficient funds in a student visa application, and the applicants included their older child as an applicant while their younger, Australian-born children were not part of the application. The Tribunal also noted a delay in the protection visa application and a return visit to Thailand.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether any of the applicants qualified as refugees under section 5J(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), meaning they had a well-founded fear of persecution in Thailand for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. If they did not meet the refugee criterion, the Tribunal was required to consider whether they met the criteria for complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa) of the Act, assessing if there was a real risk of significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Thailand. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicants could satisfy section 36(2)(b) of the Act by being members of the same family unit as a non-citizen who met the criteria for a protection visa.

The Tribunal's reasoning involved a detailed consideration of the applicants' claims and evidence, including submissions, statements, country information reports, and news articles concerning loan sharking in Thailand. The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 84, the 'Refugee Law Guidelines', and 'Complementary Protection Guidelines'. It found that the applicants' claims were inconsistent and exaggerated, and that the evidence did not establish a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal noted the prevalence of money lending in Thailand and ongoing legal initiatives against criminal loan sharking, but ultimately concluded that these factors did not satisfy the threshold for protection obligations.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Australia had protection obligations towards any of the applicants. Therefore, the applicants did not satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) for a protection visa, nor could they satisfy the criteria under section 36(2)(b) or (c). The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visas.