1921718 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by an applicant who claimed to fear persecution in Thailand. The applicant alleged that her former employer, with whom she had been involved in a dispute regarding drug trafficking, had threatened her and that Thai authorities would be unable to provide protection due to corruption. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the enumerated reasons under section 5J of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), or alternatively, whether there were substantial reasons to believe the applicant would suffer significant harm if returned to Thailand.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of Ministerial Direction No. 84, the Refugee Law Guidelines, Complementary Protection Guidelines, and country information. The applicant, identified as a national of Thailand based on her passport, provided limited detail regarding her claims. She alleged that after refusing to deliver drugs for her former employer, she suffered a reduction in salary, verbal abuse, physical assault, and death threats. She further claimed that Thai authorities were corrupt and would not protect her, and that she could not relocate within Thailand as her employer could track her down.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been afforded opportunities to provide further information and evidence to support her claims, but had not done so. The delegate's assessment acknowledged the applicant's allegations of harm from her former employer due to her refusal to engage in narcotics trading, and her assertion that Thai authorities would not provide protection due to corruption. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient detail or evidence to substantiate her claims of a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm. The Tribunal also found no information supporting the applicant's right to enter and reside in a safe third country. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of the visa, should be upheld.