1934590 (Refugee)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the protection visa applications of a husband and wife, both Thai nationals. The primary applicant claimed she had left Thailand due to her activism in advocating for disadvantaged people, which led to her being pursued by police, threatened with imprisonment, and physically assaulted during a demonstration. She expressed a fear of being chased, beaten, or jailed if returned to Thailand, asserting that the authorities were aware of her continued activism and that the government opposed such activities.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was a real chance that the applicants would be persecuted in Thailand for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. If this refugee criterion was not met, the Tribunal had to assess whether there were substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of their removal to Thailand, the applicants faced a real risk of suffering significant harm.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the onus was on the applicants to establish the statutory elements of their claim and that it was not required to make their case for them or uncritically accept their allegations. The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims of activism and fear of persecution, alongside country information and departmental guidelines. Ultimately, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, either as refugees or by facing significant harm.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants protection visas.