1925873 (Refugee)

The applicants sought review of a decision not to grant them protection visas. The dispute centred on their claims of fearing harm from a loan shark in Thailand due to an unpaid debt. The applicants, identified as Thai citizens, asserted they had borrowed a significant sum to fund a business that subsequently failed, leading to death threats and harassment. The court was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, either under the refugee criterion or the complementary protection criterion, as defined by the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).

The court considered the applicants' claims in light of the relevant legislative provisions and guidelines. It accepted that the applicants had indeed borrowed a substantial amount from a lender, evidenced by a loan agreement and bank statements. However, the court found the claims of ongoing harassment and threats to be vague and implausible. Crucially, the court noted that the lender had likely taken possession of the business and its stock, suggesting a resolution to the immediate financial dispute. Furthermore, the court observed that a later student loan was being repaid, indicating a capacity to manage financial obligations.

Applying the principles of refugee and complementary protection, the court concluded that the applicants had not established a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of suffering significant harm as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Thailand. The court found that the claims lacked the necessary specificity and credibility to satisfy the statutory requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the protection visas.