1917944 (Refugee)

The applicant, who identified as a member of the Yao hill tribe from northern Thailand, sought a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution in Thailand due to his race, membership of a particular social group, or other grounds, and whether he faced a real risk of significant harm upon return. The matter was before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee under section 5H of the Migration Act 1958, or if there were substantial grounds for believing he would suffer significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Thailand under section 36(2)(aa). This involved assessing the credibility of his claims regarding a loan from a loan shark, threats of harm, and the inability of Thai authorities to provide protection.

The Tribunal applied the principles that the onus is on the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal of all statutory elements, and that a decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case. The Tribunal found significant concerns regarding the credibility of the applicant's evidence, noting it was limited, shifting, and contained inconsistencies. While acknowledging the applicant might not have been articulate, the Tribunal was satisfied that language difficulties did not fully explain these credibility issues. The Tribunal found the applicant's reasons for borrowing a large sum of money unconvincing and doubted the veracity of his claims about the loan shark and the threats he allegedly faced.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, concluding that he had not satisfied the necessary criteria.