1930624 (Refugee)

This matter concerned an application for a protection visa by a Thai national who had overstayed his visa in Australia. The applicant claimed to fear persecution in Thailand due to his opposition to the 2014 coup and the subsequent government, citing a lack of democracy, freedom of election, and economic hardship. The applicant arrived in Australia in December 2012, his student visa was cancelled in July 2016, and he applied for protection in March 2018. The decision under review was made by Rodger Shanahan, a member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was 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 whether he qualified for complementary protection. This required the Tribunal to assess whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion, or if there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of removal to Thailand, he would suffer significant harm.

The Tribunal noted that a mere claim of fear is insufficient; the applicant must satisfy the statutory elements. The applicant's claims were brief and lacked detail, and he failed to provide further information when requested or to engage with the Tribunal when invited to a hearing. The Tribunal applied the principles established in *MIEA v Guo* (1997) 191 CLR 559, which require an applicant to persuade the reviewing decision-maker that all statutory elements are met. The Tribunal also considered the provisions of section 36(2) and (2A) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) regarding refugee status and significant harm, as well as Ministerial Direction No. 84 and relevant guidelines.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. It found that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion in section 36(2)(a) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) as a refugee, nor did he satisfy the complementary protection criterion under section 36(2)(aa). The Tribunal also noted there was no suggestion that the applicant qualified as a member of the same family unit as a person who met these criteria.