1927726 (Refugee)

1927726 (Refugee) [2024] AATA 3120 (3 July 2024)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
CASE NUMBER: 1927726

COUNTRY OF REFERENCE: Thailand
MEMBER:David James
DATE:3 July 2024
PLACE OF DECISION: Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

Statement made on 03 July 2024 at 10:22am

CATCHWORDS
REFUGEE – protection visa – Thailand – particular social group – victim of loan shark – threats from criminals – fear of physical assault – fear of killing – economic conditions – state protection – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 5(1), 5AAA, 5H, 5J – 5LA, 36, 65, 411, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2
CASES
Abebe v The Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510
ABT16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 836
AVQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 133
Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379
Chand v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1997] FCA 1198
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547
MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pan Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang & Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220
Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155
Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437
Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347
SZLVZ v MIAC [2008] FCA 1816
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to section 431 of the Migration Act 1958 and replaced with generic information which does not allow the identification of an applicant, or their relative or other dependants.
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 24 September 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Thailand, applied for the visa on 13 August 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a refugee as defined by s 5H of the Act and was therefore not satisfied that the applicant was a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as outlined in s 36(2)(a) of the Act. The delegate was also not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed to Thailand, there is a real risk they will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. Therefore, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations as provided for in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The applicant filed an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 2 October 2019. The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision with their application for review.
As noted above, the applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision with their application for review. The Tribunal has read that decision and notes the decision records the delegate’s decision to refuse the applicant a protection visa having considered the material before the delegate. The Tribunal is satisfied that the decision of the delegate is reviewable under s 411(1)(c) of the Act.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 2 July 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Thai and English languages.
The applicant was not represented in relation to the review.
CRITERIA FOR A PROTECTION VISA
The criteria for a protection visa are set out in s 36 of the Act and Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations). An applicant for the visa must meet one of the alternative criteria in s 36(2)(a), (aa), (b), or (c). That is, he or she is either a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under the ‘refugee’ criterion, or on other ‘complementary protection’ grounds, or is a member of the same family unit as such a person and that person holds a protection visa of the same class.
Section 36(2)(a) provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee.
A person is a refugee if, in the case of a person who has a nationality, they are outside the country of their nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country: s 5H(1)(a). In the case of a person without a nationality, they are a refugee if they are outside the country of their former habitual residence and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, are unable or unwilling to return to that country: s 5H(1)(b).
Under s 5J(1), a person has a well-founded fear of persecution if they fear being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, there is a real chance they would be persecuted for one or more of those reasons, and the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of the relevant country. Additional requirements relating to a ‘well-founded fear of persecution’ and circumstances in which a person will be taken not to have such a fear are set out in ss 5J(2)-(6) and ss 5K-LA, which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
The criterion in s 5J(1)(a) contains a subjective requirement, that an applicant must in fact hold a fear of being persecuted, while s 5J(1)(b) imposes an objective standard, that there be a real chance the person would be persecuted. A ‘real chance’ is one that is not remote or insubstantial or a far-fetched possibility. A person can have a well-founded fear of persecution even when the possibility of persecution is below 50 per cent: Chan Yee Kin v MIEA (1989) 169 CLR 379.
If a person is found not to meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a), he or she may nevertheless meet the criteria for the grant of the visa if he or she is a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that he or she will suffer significant harm: s 36(2)(aa) (‘the complementary protection criterion’). The meaning of significant harm, and the circumstances in which a person will be taken not to face a real risk of significant harm, are set out in ss 36(2A) and (2B), which are extracted in the attachment to this decision.
Section 36(2)(aa) refers to a ‘real risk’ of an applicant suffering significant harm. The ‘real risk’ test imposes the same standard as the ‘real chance’ test applicable to the assessment of ‘well-founded fear’ in the Refugee Convention definition: MIAC v SZQRB (2013) 210 FCR 505.
Mandatory considerations
In accordance with Ministerial Direction No.84, made under s 499 of the Act, the Tribunal has taken account of the ‘Refugee Law Guidelines’ and ‘Complementary Protection Guidelines’ prepared by the Department of Home Affairs (the Department), and country information assessments prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) expressly for protection status determination purposes, to the extent that they are relevant to the decision under consideration.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Issues
The issues in this review are whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five reasons set out in s 5J(1) of the Act, and there is a real chance that, if the applicant was returned to Thailand they would be persecuted for one of those reasons and, if not, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of being removed from Australia to Thailand, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act.
Documentary evidence before the Tribunal
The Tribunal has before it documents from the Department and those submitted by the applicant to the Department and the Tribunal relating to the applicant’s claims for protection, which include (but is not limited to) the following documents, considered by the Tribunal:
·The applicant’s protection visa application lodged on 13 August 2019 and the annexed copy of the applicant’s bio-data page of his Thai passport;
·The applicant’s application for review of 2 October 2019 and the annexed Decision Record of 24 September 2019; and
·The administrative and movement records of the Department relating to the applicant.
Claims for protection
The applicant, in his visa application, made the following claims (as summarised) that:
·He left Thailand, because of his distrust of the Judiciary, law enforcement, the poor system of government and the bureaucracy and the effect of the global economy on Thailand’s economy. Poverty and unemployment in Thailand are still big issues for him;
·He endured hardship and had to borrow money from relatives and is unable to repay those debts.
·He was not harmed in Thailand but was verbally threatened in relation to his inability to repay his debts;
·Many Thais are in debt and have been harmed and/or killed;
·He did not relocate because all of Thailand is affected by economic hardship; and
·If he returns to Thailand, he will be harmed or killed by his creditors.
Department interview
The applicant was not offered an interview by the Department.
Delegates decision
The delegate’s decision of 24 September 2019 to refuse the protection visa was made on the information before the delegate. The delegate with reference to country information found that there are effective protection measures available to the applicant in Thailand and as such the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution. Therefore, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the criteria in s 5H(1) of the Act, and therefore was not a refugee. The delegate also found with reference to country information that the applicant could obtain, from an authority of Thailand, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as outlined in s 36(2B)(b). Therefore, the delegate was also not satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed to Thailand, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act.
Invitation to attend a hearing
On 6 June 2024, the Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a review hearing at the Brisbane Registry on 2 July 2024 at 9:30 am. This correspondence advised the applicant that the Tribunal had considered all the material before it relating to their application, but that it was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The Tribunal invited the applicant to give oral evidence and present arguments at a hearing. The invitation stated that if the applicant did not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may make a decision on the case without further notice.
Country information
The Tribunal has taken into account the DFAT Country Information Report Thailand, 18 December 2023 as relevant, including information under the heading of ‘Economic Overview’ at 2.7 to 2.11, it is reported at 2.7, 2.9 and 2.10, that:
Thailand has experienced rapid economic and social development since the 1960s. The World Bank has classified Thailand as an upper-middle income economy since 2011. The economy contracted sharply during the COVID-19 pandemic, largely due to a halt in foreign tourism, which normally accounts for 11 per cent of GDP (the whole tourism sector accounts for approximately 20 per cent of GDP). Although tourism rebounded in 2022, 2023 GDP growth figures have been weaker than expected, mostly due to a slowdown in demand for Thailand’s manufactured exports, a drop in Government spending due to election period, and longer than expected time taken to form government.
Thailand’s official unemployment rate is amongst the lowest in the world, at just 1.05 per cent. Analysts attribute this to a low birth rate, lack of unemployment benefits, and the practice of considering those working in Thailand’s large informal sector to be employed, regardless of how few hours per week they work. In practice, there is considerable unemployment and underemployment in Thailand, including among recent university graduates. Other economic challenges include low productivity, high levels of household debt, falling real wages, and a large shadow economy.
Thailand has expanded its welfare system over the past decade. Around 14.5 million Thais who are over 18 and earn less than THB 100,000 (AUD 4,200) per year are eligible for benefits under the state welfare card scheme. Benefits include a THB 300 (AUD 12) per month cash handout, THB 500 (AUD 20) credit for public transport, discounts for gas and utility bills, and additional cash handouts for the disabled and elderly.
Under the heading of ‘Corruption’ at 2.27 to 2.30, it is reported that:
Thailand is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against corruption (CAC) (see Human Rights Framework) and has an outwardly strong legal framework to prevent and eliminate corruption. Nevertheless, corruption thrives in Thailand, ranked 101 out of 180 countries in Transparency International’s 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index. In 2020 (the most recent available figures), Transparency International found that a quarter of Thais had paid a bribe to access public services in the previous year, and 40 per cent of Thais thought the police were mostly, or all, corrupt.
It is common to pay bribes or use personal connections to obtain identity documents (see Documentation), enrol children in school and escape traffic fines. Contributing factors include low public sector wages, a culture of gift exchange when doing business, and a tendency to view corruption as the actions of ‘bad individuals’ rather than as a systemic social or political issue.
Local and foreign observers report that high-level corruption is common among senior officials, politicians, and the military. Despite justifying its overthrow of the Yingluck government with a promise to end corruption, the military-backed Prayuth government was involved in numerous scandals, including revelations the Deputy Prime Minister had accumulated an undeclared USD 685,000 (AUD 1 million) luxury watch collection, a lottery scam implicating a senior aide to the Prime Minister, and irregularities in the procurement of Chinese submarines by the Thai navy.
The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is empowered to investigate allegations of corruption against politicians, judges, and government officials. Critics allege the NACC is highly politicised, and that it has ignored or dismissed alleged malfeasance by military-backed governments while aggressively pursuing complaints against their political opponents.
Under the heading of ‘Victims of loan sharks’ at 3.112 to 3.118, where it is reported that:
Loan sharking is a serious and widespread problem in Thailand, where it accounts for an estimated 20 per cent of total lending. At least half of those who owe money to loan sharks also have debts with formal lenders. In many cases, victims owe money to multiple lenders and borrow from one lender to pay off another. Victims range from factory workers and day labourers to small-scale farmers, economic migrants, and operators of SMEs. Loans range from as little as THB 3,000 (AUD 120) to THB 1 million (AUD 40,000) or more.
Loan sharks typically charge extremely high interest, often calculated daily. For instance, a victim may take out a THB 5,000 (AUD 200) loan on which they must pay THB 125 (AUD 5) interest per day for 25 days, at which point they must repay the principal in full, an interest rate of more than 60 per cent. Borrowers often receive considerably less than the nominal amount borrowed: a victim may borrow THB 10,000 (AUD 400) and only receive THB 7,200 (AUD 300) due to ‘deductions’ charged by the loan shark.
Small borrowers often hand over bank cards or identity documents as collateral. Farmers tend to secure their loans against land deeds. Many loans are not secured against assets, however, are guaranteed by a relative or village headman. Loans which are secured against assets, such as farm machinery, are typically easier to settle if the borrower defaults, since the lender can repossess the asset to pay off the debt. Military personnel sometimes fall victim to loansharking by senior officers, who lend them money to assist with the corrupt purchase of ranks; they are reportedly expected to repay their debts through further corruption.
Loan sharking operators include criminal gangs, wealthy individuals, and corrupt officials. Some employ former police officers – known as ‘black helmets’ – as enforcers. Enforcers use a variety of methods to coerce borrowers into repaying their debts, including verbal harassment and threats of legal action, as well as vandalism, such as supergluing the locks on a property so the victim can’t access it. They may also use doxxing or post notices around a person’s workplace or home that they are a ‘bad person’ who doesn’t pay their debts. At the higher end, enforcers seize assets such as TVs and rice cookers, burn down victims’ homes or businesses, make violent threats (including sexual threats) against victims, family members and guarantors, and carry out physical attacks. DFAT is aware of cases where victims were severely beaten or forced into drug trafficking or sex work to repay their debts. Suicide rates among victims are high.
Thailand criminalises loansharking under Civil Code 156, which limits the maximum interest chargeable on loans to 15 per cent, and Civil Code 2560, which makes loansharking a criminal offence, punishable by two years in prison. Loansharking victims can access support through agencies including the police, the Ministry of Interior and the Prime Minister’s Office. Victims can also contact the Center for Countering Abuse by Loan Sharks on a 24/7 hotline. Police investigate loansharking claims and loan sharks are regularly arrested and imprisoned: for instance, more than 100 people were arrested on suspicion of loansharking in the first half of 2022.
Despite these protections, in-country sources reported that victims were often unaware of how to seek help, authorities were under-resourced to combat loansharking, and their efforts were often poorly coordinated. Corruption is a serious obstacle and local officials are often involved in loan sharking or turn a blind eye to it. It can be difficult or impossible for victims to access state protection where the alleged loan shark is a high-ranking official, military or police officer, or local powerbroker.
DFAT assesses that victims of loan sharks are at high risk from criminal gangs of verbal, social and online harassment, and at moderate risk of violence, including assault, arson, and vandalism. While avenues exist to seek state protection, these are sometimes ineffective, especially where the loan shark is a high-ranking or powerful individual.
Under the heading of ‘Police’ at 5.5 to 5.10, it is reported that:
The Royal Thai Police (RTP) is the national police force of Thailand. It is governed by a Director-General who reports to the Office of the Prime Minister. The RTP employs an estimated 220,000 officers.
The Metropolitan Police Bureau is responsible for policing in Bangkok, while the Provincial Police Division is responsible for policing in the remaining 76 provinces. The Border Patrol Police, a 40,000-strong paramilitary force, has special responsibility for policing in border areas, including combating insurgencies and suppressing transnational crime. Other RTP bodies include the Central Investigation Bureau (CIB); Narcotics Suppression Bureau; Police Education Bureau; Tourist Police Bureau; and Immigration Bureau.
In October 2018, a new 1,600-strong police unit was created called the Ratchawallop Police Retainers, King’s Guards 904. This unit provides security to the royal family, carries out the king’s ‘royal wishes’, and collects information on ‘individuals and groups whose behaviours pose a threat to national security and the monarchy’.
The effectiveness of Thai police at responding to criminal incidents varies. In-country sources reported that parts of the RTP were highly effective, including those involved in investigating drug trafficking and human trafficking and undertaking ‘kill or capture’ missions against dangerous criminals. Police at junior levels are low-paid and provide much of their own equipment, including their own guns. It is reportedly common for police to extract confessions under intimidation or torture to secure convictions. Some police supplement their income by moonlighting as security guards, while others are involved in illegal activities such as trafficking.
Despite pledges by successive governments to tackle police corruption, it remains a serious, widespread problem. Efforts to reduce corruption among police have generally focused on encouraging “honest” behaviour by individual officers rather than addressing systemic issues. It can be difficult or impossible for a victim of crime to seek justice and protection from police when the perpetrator is a high-ranking or powerful individual. In September 2023, the RTP was widely criticised in Thai media following 25 officers’ failure to prevent (and possible collusion in) the murder of another officer who had reportedly refused to improperly transfer the relative of a local powerbroker.
There are credible, well-documented reports of human rights abuses by Thai police, including torture and mistreatment, arbitrary detention and extra-judicial killings. People can file complaints of police abuse with the superior of the accused police officer, with the Office of the Inspector General, or with the Police Commissioner General. The NHRCT, the Lawyers’ Council of Thailand, the Office of the National Anticorruption Commission, the Supreme Court of Justice, the MOJ, the Office of the Prime Minister, and the Office of the Ombudsman also accept complaints of police abuse and corruption. Complaints about police abuse rarely result in punishment. Investigations are often superficial, and complainants are sometimes countersued for defamation by police.
Under the heading of ‘Department of Special Investigations (DSI)’ at 5.11 and 5.12, it is reported that:
Formed in 2002, the Department of Special Investigation (DSI) is a 1,600-strong investigative unit that sits within the Ministry of Justice and operates independently of the RTP. The DSI has a statutory remit to investigate serious crimes in the public interest, including complex criminal cases, those affecting national security, those involving organised crime, and those potentially implicating high-ranking government officials or police officers. It is empowered to instigate its own enquiries.
Although the DSI is reportedly a well-funded and highly capable organisation, DSI officers are occasionally accused of corruption and misconduct. In January 2023, the head of the DSI was removed from his post, after reportedly failing to act against five DSI officers accused of accepting THB 9.5 million (AUD 400,000) in bribes to release 11 suspected Chinese gangsters operating from the former Nauru Consul General’s residence.
And under the heading of ‘Judiciary’ at 5.13 to 5.16, it is reported at 5.13, that:
The Constitution provides for the right to a fair and public trial and for the presumption of innocence. While most trials are public, courts may order closed trials in cases involving national security, the royal family, children, or sexual abuse. Defendants in ordinary criminal courts enjoy a broad range of legal rights, including access to a lawyer of their choosing, prompt detailed information on the charges against them, free assistance of an interpreter as necessary, the right to be present at trial, and the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence. They also have the rights to not be compelled to testify or confess guilt, to confront witnesses, and to appeal. While these rights are generally respected, sometimes authorities reportedly do not afford all of them to defendants, particularly in small or remote provinces.

The Tribunal has also considered reports of recent police operations targeting loan sharks in Thailand including the report of ‘Asean Now’ of 15 June 2024, titled ‘Cyber Police Bust Loan Shark Charging 3% Daily Interest’, in which it is reported that:
In an extensive operation, cyber police arrested an online loan shark who was charging an exorbitant 3% interest rate per day, using threats and public shaming as intimidation tactics. The clampdown revealed numerous incriminating items linked to the illegal venture.
The operation, overseen by Cyber Police Chief Worawat Watnakornbancha, stemmed from a search warrant issued by the Trang Provincial Court. The raid, executed in Trang Province, led to the apprehension of 22-year-old Nichanan. Seized items included a mobile phone, 35 loan agreements, customer lists in six notebooks, and nine posters advertising fast loans.
Nichanan is accused of running a high-interest loan business without authorization. The investigation began when Cyber Police Division 5 discovered a Facebook account offering loans with an illegal daily interest rate of 3%, targeting individuals for amounts up to 100,000 baht. Non-payment was met with threats, public shaming on Facebook, or property destruction.
The cyber police tracked and identified the Facebook account and its owner, leading to the raid. Nichanan is now in custody at Sikao Police Station, facing charges and further investigation.
This operation is part of a broader initiative to eliminate illegal loan practices and protect citizens from predatory lenders. Authorities are committed to ensuring financial businesses conform to legal frameworks, thus safeguarding individuals from exploitative financial practices.
In a related matter, a mother faced with a staggering debt of 2.6 million baht, resulting from a 10,000 baht loan taken 12 years ago for her child's school fees, highlights the severe impact of excessive interest rates. The debt spiraled out of control, prompting the mother to seek aid through the "Survive – Sai Mai Must Survive" Facebook page.
The crackdown and related stories underscore the increasing threat posed by online loan sharks exploiting vulnerable individuals through social media. The authorities are determined to prevent such exploitation through continued vigilance and enforcement.[1]
[1] ‘Cyber Police Bust Loan Shark Charging 3% Daily Interest’, Asean Now, 15 June 2024, at >
The Tribunal also notes that the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre’s, 19 September 2022 article; ‘Thailand: Many fall prey to loan sharks during pandemic due to lack of access to legitimate loans’ indicates that the Royal Thai Police continue to mount successful anti-loan shark operations. It is in part, reported in this article that:
In June 2020, three months into Thailand’s COVID-19 lockdown, the Royal Thai Police established the Centre for Countering Abuse by Loan Sharks after receiving increasing complaints from victims reporting physical intimidation.
So far, police have investigated more than 7,000 cases. The centre’s hotline had received about 4,000 calls a month for eight months ending in June, but could only respond to a quarter of them because of a lack of resources.
Still, police arrested 833 loan shark suspects in those eight months, froze 254 bank accounts, impounded hundreds of cars and motorcycles and seized 1.49 million baht ($49,780) in cash. The centre estimated the value of assets confiscated to be more than 31 million baht ($852,600)…[2]
[2] ‘Thailand: Many fall prey to loan sharks during pandemic due to lack of access to legitimate loans’, 19 September 2022, Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, at -of-access-to-legitimate-loans/
Review hearing – 2 July 2024
The Tribunal hearing was conducted at the Brisbane Registry in the English and Thai languages.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that the hearing would consider the applicant’s application for a protection visa afresh. The applicant, when questioned by the Tribunal as to his understanding of the relevant statutory framework and concepts as to the refugee and complementary protection criteria told the Tribunal that he did not have an understanding of the criteria.
The Tribunal then provided a brief outline of the refugee and complimentary protection criteria to the applicant, who then acknowledged that he understood the criteria.
The applicant then told the Tribunal that he had arrived in Australia [in] June 2019 on a tourist visa and had stayed with a Thai friend in [Town 1] Victoria for three months before another friend had suggested to him that he should stay in Australia and change his visa so he could earn a living in Australia.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he then applied for the protection visa so he could obtain a bridging visa that allowed him to work in Australia. He said that he then moved to [Town 2] in Victoria where he obtained [specified employment] for six months. The applicant said that later in 2020 he moved to [Town 3] in Queensland where he was employed [for specified duties]. He told the Tribunal that since then he has been moving between [Town 3] and Melbourne to work [at specified duties] on a six-month rotational basis and that he has continued with this employment arrangement.
When asked whether he had applied for the protection visa on the advice of his friend, so that he could obtain working rights through a bridging visa, the applicant replied; “correct”. Under further questioning to the effect that, at that time, and now, he had no fears about being harmed if he was to return to Thailand; but rather wanted to remain in Australia for work; the applicant replied saying: “not correct”.
The applicant further explained that he had come to Australia to find work as his creditor in Thailand had targeted his life. He told the Tribunal that he had taken out a loan in Thailand in 2018 and it was a lot of money, and the interest rate was very high and was being compounded. He said it was a 1 million Thai Baht loan and the interest was 2 million Thai Baht, so the total he owed was 3 million Thai Baht.
The applicant further explained that he had prior to travelling to Australia been working in Thailand as [an occupation 1] and had been divorced from his former wife for many years but that he continued to have contact with his [children] who were aged [ages] years of age and had, when able to do so, provided financial assistance to them for their education.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he had borrowed the money from a wealthy local businessman known as ‘[name]’ in his home province of Kalasin. He explained that he had entered into a loan agreement with the loan shark because he was unemployed at the time, and he needed to payout his car loan. He explained that he provided his house in Kalasin as security on the loan and it was later forfeited to the loan shark in accordance with the loan agreement in 2019 after he had failed to make further loan repayments. He further explained that his house was not of sufficient value to payout the loan and so he still owed 2 million Thai Baht which he said was roughly AUS $80,000.00 to $90,000.00.
He told the Tribunal that although he had not been harmed in Thailand, he had been threatened by the loan shark that if he did not repay the loan he would be hurt. He further said that as he could not repay the loan, he had decided to leave Thailand for Australia so he could get a new job and earn better money.
In reply to the Tribunal questioning the applicant as to what if any further repayments he had made since arriving and working in Australia; the applicant said that he had not made any repayments towards the loan as he had spent his money on his own support and paying tuition fess for his second [child] in Thailand.
It was then put to the applicant that he wanted to stay in Australia so he could earn a better wage which would allow him to make repayments towards his debt and provide financial assistance to his [children]. In reply, the applicant told the tribunal that this suggestion was “correct”.
When asked by the Tribunal what would happen to him if he was to return to Thailand the applicant told the Tribunal that the creditor would likely hurt him since he had not paid any interest to the creditor since 2019. He further explained that if he did not repay his debt the creditor upon any return to Thailand would likely harm him. He further told the Tribunal that he believed he had been lucky to avoid harm in Thailand and was only able to have done so because he had left Thailand for Australia after being unable to continue to make repayments on the loan.
The applicant then confirmed with the Tribunal that he had not been harmed in Thailand as a result of his inability to repay his loan and that his ex-wife and [children] had not been threatened and/or harmed over his failure to repay his loan.
When asked why he had not made a complaint to the police about the loan shark, his loan and the terms and interest on the loan together with the threats he had received. The applicant in reply, told the Tribunal that he had not done so because the loan was an informal loan.
The Tribunal then discussed the Country information that has been outlined above at paragraphs 21 to 23 with the applicant. In reply the applicant, told the Tribunal that although he had seen reports on the news that loan sharks had been arrested in Thailand, he had not heard that his creditor (loan shark) who was a wealthy and influential man in the Kalasin province had been so arrested.
The applicant was the asked as to whether he could, if he returned to Thailand, make a complaint to the police about the loan shark and his loan and their threats to him. In reply the applicant told the Tribunal that; “yes”, he could make a complaint.
Under further questioning as to whether the applicant thought that after making such a complaint to the police he could obtain assistance and protection from the Thai authorities; he told the Tribunal that; “I don’t know about that.”
In reply to the Tribunal asking the applicant whether he was aware of loan sharks having been arrested and prosecuted in Thailand in accordance with the DFAT country information; the applicant told the Tribunal that he was aware that some loan sharks had been arrested and prosecuted by the Thai authroties.
The Tribunal then asked the applicant why he could not make a complaint to the police about the loan shark and receive their assistance and if necessary, obtain their protection given the country information that had been discussed with him. The applicant in reply, told the Tribunal that the loan shark is an influential person and that he would still feel unsafe as the loan shark has a lot of money and power and he has not yet been arrested by the Thai authorities.
The applicant under further questioning agreed that he did not know whether the police would assist him and that he had not made any complaints to the police in Thailand about the loan shark. He further explained that although he partially accepted the country information, he believed that people in Thailand who have money can flip things around from wrong to right and if he returned to Thailand things could still happen to him as he is not confident about the Thai police and other government agencies including the judiciary.
When asked whether he wished to make any final submissions; the applicant told the Tribunal that if he could stay in Australia until his [children] finish their education, he would then be able to repay his debts and could return to Thailand. Under further questioning, the applicant told the Tribunal that if he could remain in Australia and continue to work here for about three years, he would then be able to pay for his [child’s] education and repay his debt.
The applicant then agreed with the Tribunal’s suggestion, that he wanted to remain in Australia so he could earn better money which would allow him to pay for his [child’s] education and repay his loan faster than he could if he was to return to Thailand.
FINDINGS AND REASONS
The Tribunal notes that it is conducting a ‘de novo’ review and has considered the material afresh and made its own assessment and determination as to whether the applicant meets the criteria for the grant of a protection visa.
Country of reference
According to the protection visa application, the applicant claims to be a citizen of Thailand and provided a copy of the bio data page of his Thai passport to the Department. Based on this material, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is who he says he is, and a national of Thailand. Thailand is therefore the receiving country for the purpose of assessing the applicant’s claims for protection.
Analysis
The Tribunal is inquisitorial and can seek out evidence it requires in order to reach a determination, but the Tribunal is not required to actively seek out evidence to support an applicant’s claim: see ABT16 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 836.
The Tribunal notes that the Act places certain obligations on protection visa applicants in presenting their case. It is the responsibility of an applicant to specify all the particulars of his or her claim to be a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations and to provide sufficient evidence to establish such a claim.[3] The Tribunal on review does not have a responsibility or an obligation to specify or assist in specifying any particulars of the claim, or to establish or assist in establishing the claim.[4] This is consistent with the established proposition that it is for the applicant to make his or her own case.[5]
[3] Section 5AAA of the Act.
[4] Ibid (with effect from 14 April 2015).
[5] Abebe v Commonwealth (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [187].
The mere fact that a person claims fear of persecution for a particular reason or reasons does not establish either the genuineness of the asserted fear or that it is ‘well-founded’. Similarly, that an applicant claims to face a real risk of significant harm does not establish that such a risk exists or that the harm feared amounts to ‘significant harm’. It remains for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal; that all of the statutory elements are made out. A decision-maker is not required to make the applicant’s case for him or her. Nor is the Tribunal required to accept uncritically all the allegations made by the applicant: see MIEA v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596; Prasad v MIEA (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70.
The Tribunal notes that assessment of credibility is an inherently difficult process and can be based on imperfect perceptions of truth.[6] In this regard the Tribunal has taken into consideration the comments of both the High Court and Federal Court of Australia,[7]and notes that in AVQ15 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 133, the court observed that it is well-established that assessment of reliability and credibility of evidence of asylum seekers should be careful and thoughtful, and processes should be conducted fairly and reasonably, considering assessment is not an exact science.
[6] Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
[7] For example, Minister for Immigration andEthnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang & Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559, Abebe v The Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510, Randhawa v MILGEA (1994) 52 FCR 437, Selvadurai v MIEA & Anor (1994) 34 ALD 347, Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and McIllhatton v Guo Wei Rong and Pan Run Juan (1996) 40 ALD 445, Chand v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1997] FCA 1198, Kopalapillai v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1998) 86 FCR 547 and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Rajalingam (1999) 93 FCR 220.
In this regard, courts have also suggested that the benefit of the doubt should be given to those who are generally credible but unable to substantiate all claims.[8] A similar approach is taken in the Department’s Refugee Law Guidelines[9] and in the UNHCR Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and Guidelines on International Protection (UNHCR Handbook),[10] which both provide useful guidance for this Tribunal.
[8] SZLVZ v MIAC [2008] FCA 1816 at [25].
[9] Department of Home Affairs, ‘Policy – Refugee and humanitarian – Refugee Law Guidelines’, section 15.4, as re-issued 1 July 2017 (Refugee Law Guidelines)
[10] UNHCR, re-issued February 2019 at [203]–[204].
Debt to Loan shark – refugee claims
The applicant (in summary) claims that he left Thailand because of his distrust of the judiciary, law enforcement, the poor economy and because he had endured hardship and had borrowed money from a loan shark. He further claims that he was unable to repay his debt to the loan shark and although he was not harmed in Thailand, he believes that if he returns to Thailand he will be harmed or killed by his creditor the loan shark.
At the hearing the applicant reiterated his claims and focused on his debt to the loan shark and his fears of being harmed in Thailand because he had not repaid his debt. He told the Tribunal that he had left Thailand because he had been unemployed and could no longer make his loan repayments. He further told the Tribunal that the had entered into a loan agreement with the loan shark, a local influential businessman in his province and that his house had been forfeited to the loan shark after he failed to repay the loan and in accordance with the loan agreement. He said that he currently owed about 2 million Thai Baht and had not made any further repayments since having left Thailand.
The applicant in evidence at the hearing told the Tribunal that although he had not been harmed by the loan shark or his agents in Thailand he feared returning to Thailand as he feared being harmed because he had not repaid his loan.
Having accepted the applicants’ evidence as to his debt to the local loan shark and having been subjected to threats of harm; the Tribunal has considered the provisions of s 5L of the Act.
Section 5L of the Act provides that a person is to be treated as a member of a particular social Group (PSG) other than that person’s family if a characteristic, other than a fear of persecution, is shared by each member of the group, and the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, that characteristic, and that characteristic is innate or immutable or must be so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience that the member should not be forced to renounce it, or it must distinguish the group from society.
In its consideration of the information and evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant can be found to be a member of a PSG, being ‘a victim of a loan shark threatened with harm and demands for repayment of a loan’.
However, under questioning at the hearing the applicant accepted the country information as to the arrest and prosecution of loan sharks by the Thai authorities and further told the Tribunal that he was aware of such police actions after hearing about police anti-loan shark operations in Thailand through news reports.
Further the applicant accepted that he could make a complaint about the loan shark to police and that he may obtain assistance from the authorities but given the loan shark was an influential member of the community he was not confident that he would be protected.
In this regard, the Tribunal prefers the country information as has been outlined above at paragraphs 21 to 23, and although accepting that there may be some local instances of corruption is satisfied that the applicant can, if he so needs to, obtain protection from an authority of Thailand.
In this regard, the Tribunal finds that such protection measures are as is outlined in s 5LA of the Act. Further, given the media articles outlined above at paragraphs 22 and 23, the Tribunal finds that the authorities in Thailand have shown a continued willingness and success in combatting loan sharks such that the applicant would not face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm on account of his membership of the PSG being ‘a victim of a loan shark threatened with harm and demands for repayment of a loan’.

Additionally, as to the applicant’s claims as to the economic climate in Thailand, the applicant at the hearing told the Tribunal that he could, if he returned to Thailand, obtain employment that would allow him to make repayments towards his outstanding debt and that he stated in summary of his matter; that he wanted to remain in Australia so he could earn better money than he could in Thailand and this would allow him to pay for his [child’s] education and repay his loan faster than he could if he was to return to Thailand. However, the Tribunal notes that such claims as to possible hardships because f the economic situation in Thailand are not for any of the reasons that are outlined in s 5J(1)(a) of the Act.
Therefore, on the evidence before it, and for the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm if he was in the reasonably foreseeable future to return to Thailand on account of his debt to a loan shark and the economic situation in Thailand.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s fears in this regard are not well-founded.
Complementary protection considerations
Additionally, the Tribunal has separately considered whether the applicant will face a real risk of suffering significant harm as a result of his debt to a loan shark and the economic situation in Thailand.
In this regard, the Tribunal notes that the economic situation and the available employment opportunities in Thailand are matters that are faced by the population at large. As such there is taken not to be a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm because of the economic situation and employment opportunities if he was to return to Thailand in the future, s 36(2B)(c) of the Act.
Additionally, as to the applicant’s debt to a loan shark the Tribunal notes, as has been outlined above at paragraphs 62 and 63, that although the DFAT country information indicates that there are some instances of corruption in the police, law enforcement and judiciary there is no information and/or evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant will not be able to obtain protection from the Thai authorities if he so needed to do so in relation to his debt to a loan shark. Therefore the applicant would not be at a real risk of suffering significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act, s 36(2B)(b) of the Act.
Therefore, on the evidence before it, and for the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Thailand, that there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act.
Refugee criterion
Based on the information before it, the Tribunal rejects the applicant’s claims of fear and having considered all of the applicant’s claims both individually and cumulatively, finds there has been no evidence of persecution or fears of persecution for the reasons provided in s 5J of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not face a real chance of persecution involving serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s fears of persecution are not well-founded as required by s 5J of the Act and therefore the applicant is not a refugee within the definition of s 5H of the Act.
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(a) of the Act.
Complementary protection
Having concluded the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s 36(2)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant is eligible for complementary protection as outlined in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
As noted above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that any of the applicant’s claims meet the refugee criterion. It is for the same reasons that the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets the refugee criterion, and that the economic situation in Thailand is faced by the population at large and that the applicant if he so needs to do so can obtain protection from the Thai authorities that it is also not satisfied that the applicant meets the complementary protection criterion. Given the evidence before it, the Tribunal does not accept that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to Thailand, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm as defined in s 36(2A) of the Act.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Additional findings
Additionally, there is no suggestion that the applicant satisfies 36(2) of the Act on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who satisfies s 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Act and who holds a protection visa.
As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet the refugee and complimentary criteria and does not satisfy the criteria in s 36(2) of the Act, the Tribunal has not found it necessary to assess s 36(3) of the Act as to whether the applicant has a right to enter and reside in a country other than Thailand.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.
David James
Senior Member
ATTACHMENT - Extract from Migration Act 1958
5 (1) Interpretation
…
cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment means an act or omission by which:
(a)     severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person; or
(b)     pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person so long as, in all the circumstances, the act or omission could reasonably be regarded as cruel or inhuman in nature;
but does not include an act or omission:
(c)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(d)     arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
degrading treatment or punishment means an act or omission that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation which is unreasonable, but does not include an act or omission:
(a)     that is not inconsistent with Article 7 of the Covenant; or
(b)     that causes, and is intended to cause, extreme humiliation arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
torture means an act or omission by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person:
(a)     for the purpose of obtaining from the person or from a third person information or a confession; or
(b)     for the purpose of punishing the person for an act which that person or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
(c)     for the purpose of intimidating or coercing the person or a third person; or
(d)     for a purpose related to a purpose mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); or
(e)     for any reason based on discrimination that is inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant;
but does not include an act or omission arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions that are not inconsistent with the Articles of the Covenant.
…
receiving country, in relation to a non-citizen, means:
(a)     a country of which the non-citizen is a national, to be determined solely by reference to the law of the relevant country; or
(b)     if the non-citizen has no country of nationality—a country of his or her former habitual residence, regardless of whether it would be possible to return the non-citizen to the country.
…
5H    Meaning of refugee
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person in Australia, the person is a refugee if the person is:
(a)     in a case where the person has a nationality – is outside the country of his or her nationality and, owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country; or
(b)     in a case where the person does not have a nationality – is outside the country of his or her former habitual residence and owing to a well-founded fear of persecution, is unable or unwilling to return to it.
Note:     For the meaning of well-founded fear of persecution, see section 5J.
…
5J     Meaning of well-founded fear of persecution
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person has a well-founded fear of persecution if:
(a)     the person fears being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion; and
(b)     there is a real chance that, if the person returned to the receiving country, the person would be persecuted for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(c)     the real chance of persecution relates to all areas of a receiving country.
Note:     For membership of a particular social group, see sections 5K and 5L.
(2)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country.
Note:     For effective protection measures, see section 5LA.
(3)A person does not have a well-founded fear of persecution if the person could take reasonable steps to modify his or her behaviour so as to avoid a real chance of persecution in a receiving country, other than a modification that would:
(a)     conflict with a characteristic that is fundamental to the person’s identity or conscience; or
(b)     conceal an innate or immutable characteristic of the person; or
(c)     without limiting paragraph (a) or (b), require the person to do any of the following:
(i)alter his or her religious beliefs, including by renouncing a religious conversion, or conceal his or her true religious beliefs, or cease to be involved in the practice of his or her faith;
(ii)conceal his or her true race, ethnicity, nationality or country of origin;
(iii)alter his or her political beliefs or conceal his or her true political beliefs;
(iv)conceal a physical, psychological or intellectual disability;
(v)enter into or remain in a marriage to which that person is opposed, or accept the forced marriage of a child;
(vi)alter his or her sexual orientation or gender identity or conceal his or her true sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
(4)If a person fears persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a):
(a)     that reason must be the essential and significant reason, or those reasons must be the essential and significant reasons, for the persecution; and
(b)     the persecution must involve serious harm to the person; and
(c)     the persecution must involve systematic and discriminatory conduct.
(5)Without limiting what is serious harm for the purposes of paragraph (4)(b), the following are instances of serious harm for the purposes of that paragraph:
(a)     a threat to the person’s life or liberty;
(b)     significant physical harassment of the person;
(c)     significant physical ill‑treatment of the person;
(d)     significant economic hardship that threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(e)     denial of access to basic services, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist;
(f)     denial of capacity to earn a livelihood of any kind, where the denial threatens the person’s capacity to subsist.
(6)In determining whether the person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia is to be disregarded unless the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee.
5K    Membership of a particular social group consisting of family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person (the first person), in determining whether the first person has a well‑founded fear of persecution for the reason of membership of a particular social group that consists of the first person’s family:
(a)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced, where the reason for the fear or persecution is not a reason mentioned in paragraph 5J(1)(a); and
(b)     disregard any fear of persecution, or any persecution, that:
(i)the first person has ever experienced; or
(ii)any other member or former member (whether alive or dead) of the family has ever experienced;
where it is reasonable to conclude that the fear or persecution would not exist if it were assumed that the fear or persecution mentioned in paragraph (a) had never existed.
Note:     Section 5G may be relevant for determining family relationships for the purposes of this section.
5L    Membership of a particular social group other than family
For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, the person is to be treated as a member of a particular social group (other than the person’s family) if:
(a)     a characteristic is shared by each member of the group; and
(b)     the person shares, or is perceived as sharing, the characteristic; and
(c)     any of the following apply:
(i)the characteristic is an innate or immutable characteristic;
(ii)the characteristic is so fundamental to a member’s identity or conscience, the member should not be forced to renounce it;
(iii)the characteristic distinguishes the group from society; and
(d)     the characteristic is not a fear of persecution.
5LA Effective protection measures
(1)For the purposes of the application of this Act and the regulations to a particular person, effective protection measures are available to the person in a receiving country if:
(a)     protection against persecution could be provided to the person by:
(i)the relevant State; or
(ii)a party or organisation, including an international organisation, that controls the relevant State or a substantial part of the territory of the relevant State; and
(b)     the relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (a) is willing and able to offer such protection.
(2)A relevant State, party or organisation mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) is taken to be able to offer protection against persecution to a person if:
(a)     the person can access the protection; and
(b)     the protection is durable; and
(c)     in the case of protection provided by the relevant State—the protection consists of an appropriate criminal law, a reasonably effective police force and an impartial judicial system.
…
36     Protection visas – criteria provided for by this Act
…
(2)A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a)     a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the person is a refugee; or
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a non-citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (a); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant; or
(c)     a non-citizen in Australia who is a member of the same family unit as a non-citizen who:
(i)is mentioned in paragraph (aa); and
(ii)holds a protection visa of the same class as that applied for by the applicant.
(2A)A non‑citizen will suffer significant harm if:
(a)     the non‑citizen will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
(b)     the death penalty will be carried out on the non‑citizen; or
(c)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to torture; or
(d)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
(e)     the non‑citizen will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
(2B)However, there is taken not to be a real risk that a non‑citizen will suffer significant harm in a country if the Minister is satisfied that:
(a)     it would be reasonable for the non‑citizen to relocate to an area of the country where there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(b)     the non‑citizen could obtain, from an authority of the country, protection such that there would not be a real risk that the non‑citizen will suffer significant harm; or
(c)     the real risk is one faced by the population of the country generally and is not faced by the non‑citizen personally.
…

[2024] AATA 3120

3 July 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Standing

Statutory Construction