1930414 (Refugee)

This case concerned an application for a protection visa by a Thai national. The applicant claimed he left Thailand due to distrust of the judiciary and law enforcement, a poor system of government, and widespread economic problems including poverty and unemployment. He further alleged he lived in harsh conditions, borrowed money from relatives which he could not repay, and consequently experienced mental distress and fear due to awareness of others being harmed or killed for similar reasons. He also claimed to have received verbal threats and been physically hurt in Thailand, but did not believe Thai authorities could protect him due to the socio-economic nature of his problems.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee under section 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) or entitled to complementary protection under section 36(2)(aa). This required determining if the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and if there was a real chance of such persecution in Thailand. Alternatively, it involved assessing if 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.

The court affirmed the decision not to grant the visa, finding that the applicant's claims were brief and highly generalised. The applicant had not provided a full account of the circumstances surrounding his claims, nor had he supplied any evidence to support his assertions of receiving threats or being hurt. He failed to satisfactorily describe the nature of the threats or the circumstances of being injured, identify when or where these events occurred, name the perpetrators, or explain whether there were any refugee-related reasons for the harm. Crucially, the applicant did not explain why he believed he would face a real chance of serious or significant harm if returned to Thailand. The court reiterated that it is the applicant's responsibility to specify all particulars of their claim and provide sufficient evidence, and that a decision-maker is not required to make the case for the applicant.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the statutory elements required for a protection visa. Consequently, the decision under review to refuse the protection visa was affirmed.