1917663 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of an applicant seeking a protection visa for Australia, having arrived from Thailand. The applicant claimed to have left Thailand due to threats and violence from a debt collector group after attempting to leave their ranks and being unable to repay a debt. The applicant feared persecution if returned to Thailand, alleging the group had members throughout the country and could harm or kill him.

The core legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant possessed a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) in Thailand, or alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds to believe that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Thailand, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm. The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's claims against the statutory criteria for protection visas, including the definition of "significant harm" and the availability of effective protection measures.

The Tribunal's reasoning emphasised that the mere assertion of a fear of persecution or harm does not satisfy the applicant's onus to prove their case. It reiterated that decision-makers are not obliged to construct an applicant's case for them, and that applicants must provide specific particulars and sufficient evidence to establish their claims. The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence to be limited, general, lacking in specificity, and hesitant, which undermined its credibility. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory elements required for the grant of a protection visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.