1924426 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Thai national, sought protection in Australia, claiming a fear of loan sharks in Thailand. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) was required to determine whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee or was entitled to complementary protection.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a reason specified in the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) or faced a real risk of significant harm, and whether Australia had protection obligations towards him. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims in light of the relevant statutory provisions, which place the onus on the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to establish their claims, and the principle that a decision-maker is not required to make the applicant's case for them.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence was inconsistent, changing, and vague, raising significant credibility concerns. While acknowledging the applicant's assertion that loan sharks could find him anywhere in Thailand, the Tribunal placed greater weight on independent country information. This information indicated that the Thai authorities were actively cracking down on loan sharks, with new laws, ongoing prosecutions, and schemes to assist debtors. The Tribunal concluded that despite some corruption within the Thai police and judicial systems, effective state protection measures were available to the applicant, including appropriate criminal laws, a reasonably effective police force, and an impartial judicial system. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or faced a real risk of significant harm.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for being a refugee under section 5H of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and was therefore not entitled to protection.