1928285 (Refugee)

The applicant, a national of Thailand, sought a protection visa, claiming he could not return to his home country due to fear of reprisal from a prominent businessman from whom he had borrowed money. The applicant alleged that this businessman, who had strong connections with authorities and criminal gangs, had threatened him and his family with harm if the debt was not repaid, and that seeking assistance from Thai authorities would be futile. The applicant also argued that he would be safe in Australia as the businessman and his associates would not dare to harm him there.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for one or more of the reasons specified in s 5J(1)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), or, alternatively, whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to Thailand, he faced a real risk of suffering significant harm under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act. The Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's claims against the backdrop of relevant guidelines and country information, and to assess the credibility of his evidence.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under s 36(2)(a) of the Act, which requires a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion under s 36(2)(aa) of the Act, which concerns the risk of significant harm upon removal. The decision noted that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in s 36(2) on the basis of being a member of the same family unit as a person who held a protection visa.