1936269 (Refugee)

The applicants, nationals of Thailand, sought protection visas in Australia. The applicant husband claimed he could not return to Thailand due to a well-founded fear of persecution stemming from his parents' murder by gangsters who were demanding protection money and had threatened to kill his remaining family. The applicant wife did not make independent claims. The delegate refused the visas, finding that effective state protection was available in Thailand.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants met the criteria for a protection visa, specifically whether they were owed protection obligations by Australia under the 'refugee' criterion or 'complementary protection' grounds. This involved assessing whether the applicant husband had a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, and whether effective protection measures were available in Thailand. The Tribunal also considered the definition of 'significant harm' in the context of complementary protection.

The Tribunal found that the applicant husband had provided insufficient detail regarding his claims, including when and where his parents were killed, the circumstances of the threats, and the identity of the gangsters. Without this information, the Tribunal could not be satisfied that he had a well-founded fear of persecution or that he would suffer significant harm upon return to Thailand. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered that the applicant husband had not demonstrated that he could not access effective protection from the Thai authorities or that relocating within Thailand would not mitigate any risk.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that neither applicant met the criteria for a protection visa under section 36(2)(a) or (aa) of the Migration Act 1958. The decision under review, which refused the protection visas, was affirmed.