1922909 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered the protection visa applications of two individuals, identified as the primary applicant and their spouse. The dispute concerned whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, with claims of fear of harm from money lenders in Thailand and, later, a claim of low-level pro-democracy protest activity. The applicants had arrived in Australia on visitor visas in November 2018 and lodged their protection visa application in May 2019.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), specifically whether they were refugees or owed protection on complementary protection grounds, or were members of the same family unit as such a person. This involved assessing the credibility and substance of the claims made, including the alleged threats from money lenders and the assertion of involvement in pro-democracy protests, in light of relevant country information and the applicants' evidence.

The Tribunal found that the primary applicant's evidence regarding the money lenders was vague and unconvincing. The applicant stated that a friend had completed the visa application without his full knowledge, and when questioned by the Tribunal, he indicated that only "half of the truth" was in the original application, with the real reason relating to his being a protestor. He admitted to borrowing money for a business that was not started due to protests, and that he used the funds to travel to and join protests. While he stated money lenders had threatened him and that they wanted their money back, he could not provide details about the lenders, describing them as not an identifiable group but simply having power in his area. The Tribunal also noted that the applicants had lodged a separate application for their Australian-born son, which had been rejected.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas. The applicants did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2) of the Migration Act as members of the same family unit as their son, whose own protection visa application had been rejected.