1919463 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse his protection visa. The applicant claimed he was abducted and assaulted by thugs after refusing to sell his family farm to a local businessman connected to an underground network and government agencies. He alleged threats were made against him and his parents, and his farm and house were destroyed. He did not report the incident due to the businessman's connections and feared he could not relocate or hide from him in Thailand. The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the reasons specified in section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and if there was a real chance of persecution upon return to Thailand. Alternatively, the court had to consider if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Thailand, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act.

The court considered the documentary evidence before the Tribunal, including the applicant's visa application, passport, and administrative records. The delegate had previously refused the visa, finding that effective protection measures were available in Thailand and therefore the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution, nor a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal invited the applicant to a hearing, noting that it was unable to make a favourable decision based on the information alone. Despite attempts to contact the applicant via email and phone, including an email invitation to a hearing on 9 July 2024, the applicant failed to attend. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's email address was full, and a voicemail was left on his mobile. The Tribunal also forwarded emails to both his recorded and updated email addresses, requesting he submit a Form MR6.

Ultimately, the applicant failed to attend the Tribunal hearing or provide further information. The court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The lack of attendance and evidence meant the applicant failed to discharge his onus of proof.