1927726 (Refugee)

The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have left Thailand due to distrust of its institutions, economic hardship, and fear of harm or death from creditors due to unpaid debts. The delegate had refused the visa, finding that the applicant did not have a well-founded fear of persecution and that there was no real risk of significant harm upon return to Thailand, based on available country information regarding state protection measures.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five prescribed reasons under section 5J(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and if there was a real chance of such persecution upon return to Thailand. Alternatively, the court had to consider whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Thailand, the applicant faced a real risk of suffering significant harm as defined in section 36(2A) of the Act.

The court considered documentary evidence, including the applicant's claims and country information from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT). The DFAT report indicated that while Thailand criminalises loan sharking and has mechanisms for state protection, these are often ineffective due to corruption, under-resourcing, and the difficulty of seeking protection when the alleged loan shark is a powerful individual. The report also noted that victims of loan sharks face a high risk of harassment and a moderate risk of violence, with high suicide rates among victims. The court noted that the applicant had not been harmed in Thailand but had received verbal threats regarding his debts, and that many Thais face similar debt issues, with some being harmed or killed. The court also acknowledged that the applicant had been invited to a hearing to provide oral evidence, indicating that the Tribunal had not yet made a final decision based solely on the documentary material.

The Tribunal invited the applicant to attend a review hearing to present oral evidence and arguments. The Tribunal advised that if the applicant did not attend, a decision might be made without further notice. The Tribunal indicated it had considered all material but was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone.