1930456 (Refugee)

The applicant, a Thai national, sought a protection visa, claiming fear of persecution due to the 2014 coup in Thailand. The applicant asserted that the coup resulted in a lack of freedom, loss of democracy, and economic damage leading to unemployment and debt, and that he opposed the coup as unlawful. The respondent affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether he was a refugee within the meaning 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. This involved assessing the applicant's claims of fear of persecution for political opinion and the potential for economic hardship.

The court found that the applicant's claims were brief and lacked the necessary detail to satisfy the Tribunal. The applicant had not responded to a request for further information from the Department and had provided insufficient detail regarding his political activities, any past or present interest from Thai authorities, or public criticism of the government. Furthermore, the court noted the significant delay in applying for protection and the applicant's voluntary return to Thailand without apparent harm, which undermined his claims of fear. The court applied the principles from *MIEA v Guo* (1997) 191 CLR 559, emphasizing that a mere claim of fear is insufficient and that the applicant must persuade the decision-maker that all statutory elements are met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa, concluding that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria under section 36(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth).